Pacifica City Council
June 27, 2022

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/24/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60084 - 60249 & 60328-60347-5-1 to 5-15-22 (5008 : Disbursements - Dated 5/01/22 through 5/15/22) 1 60225 $45.00 05/13/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 60226 $2195.98 05/13/22 01250 0 PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVISION S OUTSTANDING 1 60227 $217.50 05/13/22 01758 3 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60228 $6599.83 05/13/22 00054 2 PAPE MACHINERY S OUTSTANDING 1 60229 $138.00 05/13/22 03802 0 PATINO, JOE S OUTSTANDING 1 60230 $66.00 05/13/22 02539 0 PITTSINGER, R JANE S OUTSTANDING 1 60231 $21131.26 05/13/22 01309 0 POLYDYNE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60232 $8424.44 05/13/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 60233 $24.57 05/13/22 01795 0 ROSS, LAURIE S OUTSTANDING 1 60234 $1071.07 05/13/22 05422 0 SACTOWN CONTRACTORS CORP S OUTSTANDING 1 60235 $13508.06 05/13/22 04211 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 60236 $171132.50 05/13/22 00049 5 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY MAY2422 10:01 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60084 - 60249
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60237 $1000.00 05/13/22 05518 0 STANLEY FORBES S OUTSTANDING 1 60238 $289.24 05/13/22 00002 39 SUZUKI, MARIA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 60239 $617.00 05/13/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60240 $259.60 05/13/22 04299 0 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60241 $4757.19 05/13/22 05509 0 THOMAS AND ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 60242 $2650.00 05/13/22 04359 0 TORRES CLEANING SERVICES, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60243 $400.00 05/13/22 01657 1 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 60244 $3871.91 05/13/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60245 $2672.57 05/13/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 60246 $1071.26 05/13/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 60247 $1269.16 05/13/22 01701 0 WECO INDUSTRIES S OUTSTANDING 1 60248 $99.45 05/13/22 00001 363 YEUNG, CHRISTIE S OUTSTANDING 1 60249 $1382.48 05/13/22 01751 0 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 166 TOTAL AMOUNT: 931,246.75
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 1,395.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY MAY2422 10:01 Page: 6

FUND TOTALS
-----------

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 420,390.40 1,395.00
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 54.67 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 1,481.41 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 6,614.03 0.00
012 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,746.81 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 8,442.54 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 66,857.73 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 1,620.00 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 11,092.59 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 335,754.15 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 60.08 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 5,153.79 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 4,564.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 66,019.55 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 929,851.75 1,395.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY MAY2422 10:01 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60328 - 60347
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60328 $10508.25 05/13/22 05469 0 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60329 $9285.76 05/13/22 03741 0 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60330 $240.00 05/13/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 60331 $242.76 05/13/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 60332 $29.50 05/13/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 60333 $661.50 05/13/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 60334 $50.00 05/13/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60335 $350.00 05/13/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60336 $100.00 05/13/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60337 $110.00 05/13/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60338 $4.00 05/13/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 60339 $838.60 05/13/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 60340 $800.00 05/13/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/24/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60084 - 60249 & 60328-60347-5-1 to 5-15-22 (5008 : Disbursements - Dated 5/01/22 through 5/15/22) 1 60341 $200.00 05/13/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 60342 $420.00 05/13/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60343 $1401.16 05/13/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 60344 $92.00 05/13/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 60345 $1008.00 05/13/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 60346 $2824.00 05/13/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 60347 $2844.29 05/13/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 20 TOTAL AMOUNT: 32,009.82
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY MAY2422 10:01 Page: 8

FUND TOTALS
-----------

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 21,501.57 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 10,508.25 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 32,009.82 0.00

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/24/2022 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS= $929,851.75 + $32,009.82 = $961,861.57

1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60084 - 60249 & 60328-60347-5-1 to 5-15-22 (5008 : Disbursements - Dated 5/01/22 through 5/15/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Cancellation of July 25, 2022 City Council Meeting
STAFF CONTACT:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve cancellation of the July 25, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Traditionally the City Council has cancelled the second meeting in either July or August to allow for a vacation period. This proposal recommends cancellation of the second regular City Council meeting in July 2022. Should the Council wish to cancel the July 25, 2082 regular meeting, the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be August 9, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
2 Packet Pg. 123

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Rejection of Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. The City’s Public Works Engineering Division assessed the Pier damage and hired GHD, Inc. to prepare a pier handrail condition assessment report. The report states the section of the Pier running parallel to the shoreline, where the railing was broken from the Pier deck, will need to be fenced off and closed to public access. The report also notes that railing sections identified as severely damaged that are within the area of the pier running perpendicular to the shoreline must be repaired within a year period. Railing sections are identified in the report as having damage from a range of minor to severe with recommended repair deadlines of one year through ten years, depending on the amount of damage.

After further Engineering assessment done by the City’s consultant for this project, GHD, Inc., it was believed there may be a cost and time savings to replacing all the pier railings using precast panels rather than replacing the needed railings now and then returning several times in the next decade.

Once funding from the California State Parks and California Coastal Conservancy was secured on April 20, 2022, Public Works released a prequalification for the project. Work on piers and over open waters is specialized, and as such, staff needs to ensure the contractors receiving the work will be able to perform effectively. On May 16, 2022, three (3) contractors submitted pre-qualifications: Valentine Corporation, Dutra Corporation, and Yerba Buena Engineering and Construction, Inc. All three passed the prequalification requirements. 3 Packet Pg. 124
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
The project was then advertised on May 18th and May 25th for prequalified bids. On June 14, 2022, the bid opening was held via Zoom by the City Clerk and the result is as follows:

Company Bid
Valentine Corporation $3,229,369.00
Given that the engineer's estimate was $750,000, it is the City Manager's recommendation to reject all bids and re-bid the project. Staff believed at least two of the three prequalified contractors would bid on the work based on conversations two weeks before the bid. Following the bid, those who did not submit a bid stated that had received award of other contracts within that period and were not able to take on additional work. Staff recommends rejecting the bid and has re-opened the prequalification period to allow other contractors to prequalify to provide an opportunity for better bid results. Staff is also working with the design team, GHD, to verify the accuracy of the engineer’s estimate. It is anticipated that due to this necessary delay to rebid the project, the work will need to be completed during some of the state allowable crabbing season. Information related to the new schedule will be provided to Council once an acceptable bid has been received.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternative action could be to accept the bid and move forward with the project but that is not advised as there are currently not enough funds to accommodate the higher than expected bid.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. Rejecting the bids and rebidding the project would allow other contractors to bid and provide competitive prices.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 125

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve Change Order #2 for the FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project STAFF CONTACT:

Raymund Donguines, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project targeted failed pavement areas on Oceana Boulevard and Sharp Park Road to address safety issues and prevent these streets from falling into more expensive repair categories prior to the preventative slurry seal scheduled in the City’s 5-year plan.

On January 24, 2022, City Council approved the Construction Services Agreement with G.

Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (Attachment 1). Council also approved future Change Orders in an Amount Not to Exceed Twenty-Five Percent (25%).

However, during construction, City staff identified additional safety related areas near the work along Francisco Boulevard that needed immediate asphalt base repairs. This is a critical area leading up to and at the Highway 1 On-Ramp with heavy traffic. The additional cost is above the approved twenty-five percent (25%) change order budget. Since the contractor was already mobilized, the City had received a good price from the contractor per square foot for base repair work and additional funding was available in the budget, the most cost-effective action was to address these safety issues while the contractor was on the site. Stopping the project and remobilizing the contractor would have cost the City additional money because the contractor would have had to make a special trip back and the contractor could have requested a higher price for the work. The City Manager recommends approval of Change Order #2 between the City of Pacifica and G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for additional asphalt base repairs (Attachment 2) in the amount of $27,936.70.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve Change Order #2. However, this work was required to 4 Packet Pg. 126
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
address street safety issues and not completing this work could have resulted in vehicular accidents and increased liability to the City. Additionally, completing this construction later would have significantly increased the cost of the needed work. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Change Order is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. This project improved the existing City streets and roads by addressing the failed areas of asphalt.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds for this Change Order are from the unused fund balance related to the City’s recently completed resurfacing/concrete projects associated with the 5-Year Street Maintenance Program. There are sufficient funds to cover Change Order #2. The following is the source and use of funds for the project:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
FY 2020-21 & FY 2021-22 Concrete and Curb
Ramps Improvement Project unused balance
$166,357.87
FY 2020-21 & FY 2021-22 Pavement
Resurfacing Project unused balance
$192,609.63
Total Source of Funds $358,967.50
Construction Cost $151,208.90
Change Order #1 $37,408.65
Change Order #2 $27,936.70
Total Use of Funds $216,554.25
Project End Balance $142,413.25
Any remaining funds will go back to Street Construction Fund 9.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021- 22 Base Repair Project (PDF)
Attachment 2-Change Order #2 between the City of Pacifica and G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 127

4.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY

4.a
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Attachment 1- Construction Services Agreement with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project (5026 : FY ATTACHMENT 2 4.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 2-Change Order #2 between the City of Pacifica and G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. [Revision 1] (5026 : FY 2021-22 Street INVOICE G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc.

Project: Francisco Base Repair 582 Bragato Rd, San Carlos, CA 94070 Phone: 650.595.2591 / Fax: 650.595.0718
To: City of Pacifica
Attn: Raymund Donguines
540 Crespi Drive Invoice No: 4978
Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-3768 G. Bortolotto Job No: 22-891
1 Full Depth HMA Base Repair (4-Inch Depth) $ 5.55 SF 4234.00 4234.00 $ 23,498.70 2 Thermoplastic 12" Stripe (White or Yellow) $ 15.00 LF 287 287 $ 4,305.00 3 Pavement Markers $ 7.00 EA 19.00 19 $ 133.00
4 Traffic Control and Construction Area Signs $ 5,000.00 LS 1 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 27,936.70
$ 27,936.70
$ 1,396.84
TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE: $ 26,539.87
SUBTOTAL:

Less 5% Retention
Less Previous Invoices:

Francisco Base Repair
Total:

4.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 2-Change Order #2 between the City of Pacifica and G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc.

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of a resolution to certify the approval of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to enter into this transaction with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing Child Care and development services and to authorize the designated personnel to sign contract documents for fiscal year 2022-23, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Agreement to This Transaction with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the Purpose of Providing Child Care and Development Services and to authorize the Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents for Fiscal Years 2022-23.”
STAFF CONTACT:

Michael Perez, Director, Parks, Beaches and Recreation
(650) 738-7381
[email protected]
Tracy Gilbert, Child Care Supervisor
(650) 738-7388
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Child Care Services is in an annual contractual agreement with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services to provide subsidized Child Care.

Council action authorizing staff to have on-going responsibility and authority to work with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services regarding the program’s contracts is required. Currently, Child Care Services Supervisor Tracy Gilbert has this authority and will continue to facilitate this process. This includes: processing the annual Continued Funding Application, submission of monthly/quarterly requests for reimbursement, attending semi-annual and annual training sessions and authorizing families to receive subsidized care.

The California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services request a Council resolution authorizing participation in the 2022-23 contract documents, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents and naming an authorized representative.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This action helps to support youth services, which is a component of A Healthy and Compassionate Community.
5 Packet Pg. 170
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:

Annual contracts from the California State Department of Education for providing subsidized Child Care at Sunset Ridge, Vallemar, Ocean Shore and Cabrillo, are the General Child Care contract of $1,018,853 and the California State Preschool contract providing care at Fairmont West with a contract amount to be determined. The expenditures and revenues related to these contracts were included in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget. No additional budget authority is needed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 171
Pacifica City Council 3
June 27, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING

AGREEMENT TO THIS TRANSACTION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE

PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND TO

AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATED PERSONNEL TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the City of Pacifica authorizes entering into this agreement to this transaction and that the person/s who are listed below are authorized to sign the transaction for the Governing Board.

NAME TITLE SIGNATURE
Kevin Woodhouse City Manager __________________________ Michael Perez Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director __________________________ Tracy Gilbert Child Care Supervisor __________________________ • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 5 Packet Pg. 172

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Agreement to terms with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $157,248 for the 2022-2023 school year.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to sign the 2022-2023 contract with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $157,248, an amount which is included in the 2022-2023 budget.

STAFF CONTACT:

Tracy Gilbert, Child Care Supervisor
(650) 738-7381
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Michael Perez, Director, Parks Beaches and Recreation
(650) 738-7378
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Child Care division has offered services to the local community for over 40 years, serving state and county subsidized and full-cost children. The recommended contract with the Pacifica School District will include 13 classrooms and portables at Cabrillo, Ocean Shore, Vallemar and Sunset Ridge schools.

The program serves between 340-400 Pacifica children, preschool through middle school, when fully enrolled. Currently over 46% of the enrolled children receive free or reduced subsidized care through state and county contracts.

The contract rental amounts represent a 5% increase, which is the first in over five years.

The rent per school site for July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 will be:

Vallemar School $5,040/ month
Sunset Ridge School $3,024/ month
Cabrillo School $3,024/ month
Ocean Shore School $2,016/ month
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
6 Packet Pg. 173
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
This action helps to support youth services, which is a component of A Healthy and Compassionate Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract agreement will cost $157,248 for FY 2022-2023, an amount which is included in the 2022-2023 budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

PSD Lease 2022-23 (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 174
1 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND THE

PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES

FOR EXTENDED CHILD CARE SERVICES
This Contract is entered into July 1, 2022, by and between the Pacifica School District, hereinafter known as “DISTRICT”, and City of Pacifica, hereinafter known as “CONTRACTOR”, a municipal corporation.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires certain extended child care services (“Services”), as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT desires to engage CONTRACTOR, including its employees, if any, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in performing such Services, and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the Services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein; WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR desire to enter into this partnership to provide child care services to further educate and benefit the students of the District.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Contract, the parties agree:

SECTION 1. TERM

1.1 The term of this Contract shall be one (1) year, commencing on July 1, 2022 and terminating on June 30, 2023, unless terminated sooner as provided in this contract.

1.2 The obligation of CONTRACTOR to perform the Services will commence in accordance with the time schedule set forth in Exhibit “A”. Time is of the essence of this Contract.

1.3 Both parties may agree to extend the term of the contract for additional periods of one year, subject to all of the provisions of this Contract. Each party will notify each other by April 15th of the current year of its intent to renew this contract.

1.4 DISTRICT agrees to provide to CONTRACTOR the following collectively referred to as “PREMISES”:
a. At the Cabrillo School, located at 601 Crespi Drive, in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR three DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 2,880 square feet.

6.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 2 b. At Ocean Shore School, located at 411 Oceana Blvd., in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR two DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 1,920 square feet, at a mutually agreed upon site.
c. At the Sunset Ridge School, located at 340 Inverness Way in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR three DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 2,880 square feet, at a mutually agreed upon site.
d. At the Vallemar School, located at 377 Reina Del Mar, in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR five DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 4,800 square feet, at a mutually agreed upon site.

1.5 In consideration for use of the above mentioned space, CONTRACTOR shall compensate DISTRICT on a monthly basis as follows:
a. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (a): $3,024. b. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (b): $2,016. c. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (c): $3,024. d. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (d): $5,040.

SECTION 2. QUALIFICATIONS, STATUS, AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR

2.1 CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. CONTRACTOR further represents and warrants that the project director and every individual charged with the performance of the Services under this Contract are duly licensed or certified by the State of California, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law to perform the Services.

2.2 In reliance on the representation and warranty set forth in Section 2.1, the District retains CONTRACTOR to perform, and CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees that it will furnish or cause to be furnished, the Services.

2.3 CONTRACTOR will assign a site manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the services at each site.

2.4 CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it will:

6.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 3 2.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices, which may be necessary and incidents to the due and lawful prosecution of the Services.

2.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of California, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under this Contract, any materials used in CONTRACTOR’S performance under this Contract, or the performance of the Services;

2.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and contractors (and consultants), if any, who are assigned to the performance of this Contract to observe and comply with the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees mentioned above; and

2.4.4 Report immediately to the DISTRICT Chief Business Official, in writing, any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to providing the Services.

2.5 CONTRACTOR will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the Services. All employees of CONTRACTOR will be deemed to be directly controlled and supervised by CONTRACTOR, which will be responsible for their performance. If any employee of CONTRACTOR fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Contract or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, the employee will be disciplined in an appropriate manner.

SECTION 3. DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT

3.1 The Superintendent will represent DISTRICT for all purposes under this Contract. The Chief Business Official is designated as the project manager for the Superintendent. The project manager will supervise the performance, progress, and execution of the Services.

3.2 It shall be the responsibility of the project manager to establish general policies and guidelines, and mediate disputes among CONTRACTOR, parents, parent representatives, and the DISTRICT.

3.3 CONTRACTOR shall furnish to DISTRICT all data, statements, records, information, and reports reasonably necessary to DISTRICT to monitor, review, and evaluate the performance of CONTRACTOR’S services hereunder.

3.4 In the event DISTRICT should determine from any source, including but not limited to information submitted by CONTRACTOR under this Contract or any evaluation report from any source, that there is a condition, which requires investigation or correction, the DISTRICT will meet formally with CONTRACTOR to discuss the condition. The DISTRICT may then forward to CONTRACTOR requests for corrective action. Such requests shall indicate the nature of the issues which are to be reviewed to determine the need for corrective action and may include a recommendation as to the appropriate

6.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 4 corrective action. Within thirty (30) days of DISTRICT’S request, CONTRACTOR shall submit its response, which shall include its views of the problems and proposed action, if any. Upon requests of either party, the parties shall meet to discuss any such request and response within the thirty (30) day period specified.

3.5 For DISTRICT owned buildings and portables, the DISTRICT shall be responsible for maintenance of roof, exterior doors, exterior walls, plumbing and electrical systems, flooring and heating systems (if operable at time PREMISES are leased), and foundations; unless damage to any of the items listed herein is caused in part or in whole by the act, neglect, fault or omission of any duty by CONTRACTOR, its employees, agents, invitees, licenses or contractors, in which case CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the cost of such repairs. DISTRICT shall at all times, maintain the PREMISES in good and safe condition. DISTRICT shall be responsible for all repairs required. DISTRICT shall provide facilities equipped with necessary amenities including, but not limited to, running water (hot and cold), sinks, toilets, playground structures, fenced yard as required by local laws, ordinances, regulations for CONTRACTOR to perform services stated in the contract.

3.6 CONTRACTOR shall pay for utility service to CONTRACTOR owned portable buildings. Contractor shall pay for garbage collection services for all premises.

3.7 DISTRICT shall pay for utility service to DISTRICT-owned buildings and portable buildings.

3.8 DISTRICT shall provide internet access for Vallemar, Sunset Ridge and Ocean Shore Schools.

3.9 CONTRACTOR shall pay for internet access for Cabrillo School.

3.10 The CONTRACTOR shall obtain written permission in advance from the DISTRICT for any physical modification of any interior or exterior space. This includes attachments to floors, ceilings, walls, doors, and any modification to electrical and mechanical systems or door locks.

SECTION 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR

4.1 CONTRACTOR will furnish or cause to be furnished the specified services set forth in Exhibit “A” and such other information regarding its requirements as may be reasonably requested by DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall have sole discretion to determine the manner and method of provision of services.

4.2 CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all services offered under this Contract shall be secular in nature. CONTRACTOR shall further ensure that it shall refrain from offering religious instruction, worship, or other religious activities while providing child care

6.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 5 services, in accordance with the provision of the California and United States Constitution.

4.3 CONTRACTOR shall make all arrangements for and pay for all custodial work required to maintain PREMISES in clean, orderly, and sanitary condition at all times during the term of this Contract.

4.4 If CONTRACTOR does not maintain PREMISES in clean, orderly, and sanitary condition, DISTRICT may, but shall not be obligated to, have the PREMISES cleaned and charge all costs associated with such cleaning to the CONTRACTOR.

4.5 For CONTRACTOR owned portables, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for maintenance of roof, exterior doors, exterior walls, plumbing and electrical systems, and heating systems (if operable at time PREMISES are leased), and foundations.

CONTRACTOR shall at all times, maintain the PREMISES in good and safe condition.

CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all repairs required.

4.6 DISTRICT will not be responsible for any loss, inconvenience, annoyance, or damage to CONTRACTOR because of such cleaning.

4.7 CONTRACTOR will be responsible for the security of the building space it uses and shall not hold the DISTRICT responsible for any theft or damage property. In addition, if DISTRICT property is damaged or stolen due to a negligent act of the CONRACTOR, its employees, agents, contractors, parents, and students, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for its repair or replacement.

4.8 CONTRACTOR shall provide the DISTRICT access to the property for maintenance and other inspection purposes.

4.9 The CONTRACTOR will obey all laws and policies that govern school district property including those laws and policies applying to possession and use of alcohol and tobacco (such as, for example, Board Policy 3513.3, Tobacco-Free Schools). The CONTRACTOR will follow all California Education Code and other local, state, and federal laws and policies that pertain to school property.

SECTION 5. COST OF SERVICES OFFERED BY CONTRACTOR

5.1 The CONTRACTOR shall at all times maintain a written schedule setting forth operating hours and operating procedures for each required and optional use provided on or from the PREMISES. A schedule of prices charged for all services related to the required and optional use of this CONTRACT shall be maintained. A copy of such written schedules or procedures shall be made available upon written request.

If DISTRICT or CONTRACTOR feels the other is not maintaining or

6.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 6 meeting their obligation under this contract, there will be a meeting to resolve any issues.

If parties are unable to resolve the issue in that meeting, the matter shall be submitted to mediation by an independent third party.

SECTION 6. INDEMNITY

6.1 It is agreed that the CONTRACTOR shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the DISTRICT, its officers, agents and/or employees from any and all liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims for injuries to persons and/or damage to property which arise from the CONTRACTOR’S use of the PREMISES (including ingress and egress to the PREMISES), and for such liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and/or employees.

6.2 It is agreed that the DISTRICT shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and/or employees from any and all liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims for injuries to persons and/or damage to property which arise from the DISTRICT’S use of the PREMISES (including ingress and egress to the PREMISES), and for such liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the DISTRICT, its officers, agents and/or employees.

6.3 The duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall include the duty to defend set forth in California Civil Code Section 2778.

SECTION 7. WAIVERS

7.1 The waivers by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Contract, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, condition or provision of this CONTRACTOR or of any applicable law or ordinance.

7.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by DISTRICT will operate as a waiver on the part of DISTRICT of any of its rights under this Contract.

SECTION 8. INSURANCE

8.1 CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Contract, personal liability insurance coverage of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) insuring not only CONTRACTOR and its contractors, if any, but also, with the exception of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability insurance, naming DISTRICT as an additional insured

6.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 7 concerning CONTRACTOR’S performance under this Contract. DISTRICT acknowledges that CONTRACTOR is self-insured and may fulfill the obligation of this Section through its self-insurance pool administrator.

8.2 Any and all contractors of CONTRACTOR retained to perform Services under this Contract will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Contract, identical insurance coverage, naming DISTRICT as an additional insured under such policies as required above.

8.3 Certificates of such insurance will be filed with DISTRICT concurrently with the execution of this Contract. The certificates will be subject to the approval of DISTRICT’S Chief Business Official and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the DISTRICT’S Chief Business Official thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and that the Pacifica School District is named as an additional insured except in policies of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability insurance. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file at all times during the term of this Contract with the Chief Business Official.

8.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONTRACTOR’S liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Contract.

SECTION 9. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

9.1 CONTRACTOR, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing the performance of the Services.

SECTION 10. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CONTRACT OR SERVICES

10.1 The Superintendent may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Contract, with cause, by giving ninety (90) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR.

10.2 CONTRACTOR may terminate this Contract or suspend its performance of the Services by giving ninety (90) days’ prior written notice thereof to DISTRICT, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by DISTRICT or in the event DISTRICT indefinitely withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or continuation of the Services to be performed or if the City of Pacifica ceases providing child care services.

6.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 8 SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT

11.1 CONTRACTOR will not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of this Contract or any right, title or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of DISTRICT. A consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the Superintendent will be void and, at the option of the Superintendent, this Contract may be terminated. This Contract will not be assignable by operation of law.

SECTION 12. NOTICES

12.1 All notices hereunder will be giving in writing and mailed, postage prepared, by certified mail, and addressed as follows:

To DISTRICT: Office of the Superintendent
Pacifica School District
375 Reina Del Mar
Pacifica, CA 94044
To CONTRACTOR: Tracy Gilbert, Supervisor of Child Care Services City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
SECTION 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

13.1 In accepting this Contract, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.

13.2 CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any contractor or persons having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Contract is an officer or management employee of DISTRICT. This provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Government Code of the State of California.

SECTION 14. NONDISCRIMINATION

14.1 As set forth in DISTRICT Policy, no discrimination will be made in the employment of any person under this Contract because of the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of that person. CONTRACTOR agrees to meet all requirements of the DISTRICT Policy pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the requisite form furnished by DISTRICT.

6.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 9 14.2 If CONTRACTOR is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal law or executive order in the performance of this Contract, it will be in default of this Contract.

Only a finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will constitute evidence of a breach of this Contract.

SECTION 15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

15.1 CONTRACTOR and DISTRICT represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations for disable persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. CONTRACTOR and DISTRICT will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be effected in the performance of this Contract.

15.2 This Contract will be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law.

15.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of San Mateo, State of California.

15.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action.

15.5 This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.

15.6 All provisions of this Contract, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.

15.7 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Contract will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and contractors, as the case may be, of the parties.

15.8 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.

15.9 All exhibits referred to in this Contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and will be deemed to be a part of this Contract.

6.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 10 15.10 This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Contract on the date first above written.

ATTEST
For DISTRICT
(Pacifica School District)
By:

Josephine Peterson
Chief Business Official
For CONTRACTOR
(City of Pacifica.)
By:

ATTACHMENTS:

EXHIBIT “A”: Scope of Services for Providers of Extended Child Care Services

6.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 11 EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR PROVIDERS OF

EXTENDED CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL SERVICES AT

PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES
2022-2023
SERVICES: Under this Agreement, The City of Pacifica shall provide extended child care services to the child(ren) of families at Cabrillo, Ocean Shore, Sunset Ridge, and Vallemar School site(s), located on property owned by the Pacifica School District. Services shall be furnished as specified in this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services for Providers of Extended Child Care and Preschool Services at Pacifica School District Elementary School Sites.

The extended child care program shall admit children currently enrolled in Grades Kindergarten through Grade Eight (8) in the Pacifica School District on a priority basis, but may also admit others on a space available basis.

PROGRAM GOALS:

1. To offer affordable child care services to child(ren) of families enrolled in Pacifica School District elementary schools.

2. To provide parents with access to licensed child care services year-round including Pacifica School District school holidays, school vacations, and staff development days.

3. To provide a quality program which seeks to maintain standards set forth by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National School Age Child Care Alliance.

PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS:

1. Program Schedule.

Services rendered shall include before-and after-school care and preschool care. Program schedule shall be operable daily throughout the year, including school holidays and vacation periods except for holidays, which are recognized by the Pacifica School District. a. Regular School Days
The designated hours of operation for extended child care services on regular school days shall commence not earlier than 6:30 a.m. but not later than 7:30 a.m. and shall operate until the scheduled start of school at the site. The contractor shall reopen at the earliest scheduled end of the school day and shall remain open until at least 6:00 p.m. but not later than 6:30 p.m.

6.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 12 Regular school days are defined as Monday through Friday except holidays recognized by the Pacifica School District, PSD vacations, and PSD staff development days.

It is understood that the contractor shall have exclusive use of the site while child care programs are in session. When the site is not in use by the contractor, the DISTRICT, or its agents or assigns, may use the site for academic curriculum or other DISTRICT purposes upon reasonable notice to contractor. DISTRICT shall assume any and all liability for damages to property owned by contractor while using the facilities and shall indemnify and hold harmless contractor from injuries of any variety to all persons, which may occur while the facilities are in use by the DISTRICT or its personnel or agents. b. Holidays
Services shall be offered as outlined in this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services for Extended Child Care Services at Pacifica School District Elementary School Sites, with the only exception being holidays recognized by the Pacifica School District. Contractor shall have the option to close all facilities for one week each summer. c. School Holidays
The designated hours of operation for extended child care services on school holidays (including winter and spring breaks and summer vacation) shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. d. Consolidation of Services
The contractor may consolidate services with another licensed or legally exempt school age contractor during school vacations and summer periods when enrollment or attendance is low. Programs may close for the purpose of offering staff development or inservice training for child care staff. All such closings are subject to approval by the DISTRICT’S project manager.
e. Location of Summer Program
CONTRACTOR agrees that DISTRICT shall have the opportunity to designate the site or sites to be used for operation of the program during summer vacation. It is understood that the availability of facilities for the summer program shall, in part, be dependent upon the construction and modernization schedule of the DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall advise contractor no less than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the termination of each school year as to which facilities shall be available for use during the summer and the dates of their respective availability. DISTRICT shall have the option to provide for a change in location of facilities to be used during the course of the summer, provided, however, that no less than one hundred and twenty (120) days notice of a location change shall be provided to CONTRACTOR by DISTRICT. In complying with the requirements of this paragraph, DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR shall co-operate to ensure that the safety of all students is adequately insured and that the licensure requirements of DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR are complied with. f. Other Uses
The contractor may use the contracted space outside of the normal hours of operation for staff, parent, and/or student meetings.

6.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 13 2. Licensing and Exemptions
Services rendered shall include before- preschool care and after-school care for school age children in Grades Kindergarten through Grades Eight. Program schedule shall be operable daily throughout the year, including school holidays and vacation periods except for holidays, which are recognized by the Pacifica School District.

3. Licensing Reports
The contractor shall forward to the DISTRICT’S Project Manager, within ten (10) days of all licensing visits, copies of all licensing reports issued by the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division.

4. Staffing Ratios and Requirements
The contractor shall meet or exceed the staffing ratios and requirements for school age children as specified in the licensing requirements of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

5. Health and Safety Standards: Emergency Preparedness
The contractor shall enforce health and safety standards that are consistent with state regulations and Pacifica School District policies.

6. Staff Development
The contractor shall offer appropriate staff development activities on an ongoing basis, including staff training, in order to fully meet the child development needs of children enrolled in the program. Staff development activities related to literacy shall be designed in cooperation with the Pacifica School District Curriculum Department and Special Education Department.

7. Articulation Activities
The contractor shall attend occasional meetings with the elementary school staff. The purpose of these meetings is to articulate educational practices in the areas of literacy, numeracy and support in the “homework” aspect of the program. These meetings can be faculty or grade-level meetings.

8. Written Schedules
The contractor shall at all times maintain a written schedule setting forth the operating hours and operating procedures for each required and optional use provided on or from the elementary school site. A fee schedule for prices charged for all services related to the required and optional uses set forth in this Contract shall be maintained.

6.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 14 9. Children with Special Needs
The contractor shall identify children with special needs at the time of enrollment to ensure adequate child care staffing levels. Children with special needs who require assistance during an emergency evacuation shall be accommodating special needs children shall be designed in cooperation with Pacifica School District Special Education Department.

If any students participating in the Before and After School Extended Day Program are referred for the “Student Study Team” process at the elementary school, a staff member, who is familiar with the student, will participate in the SST meeting, and upon request by the district, participate in any IEP meetings during the time the student is still a participant in the Before and After School Extended Day Program. It is understood that written education IEP goals apply to the school day only.

10. Equipment and Supplies
The contractor shall assume responsibility for program implementation, and shall provide furniture, equipment, and supplies except as otherwise agreed upon with the Pacifica School District.

11. Waiting Lists
The contractor shall maintain a current waiting list when program is a licensed capacity.

12. Annual Parent Survey
The contractor shall conduct an annual parent survey. Results of the parent survey shall be made available to the Project Manager as part of the DISTRICT’S annual site evaluation process.

13. Materials to be Kept on File
The contractor shall ensure that materials required by the DISTRICT, as more specifically outlined in this Contract and this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services For Providers of Extended Child Care Services, be maintained on file with the DISTRICT’S Project Manager. Materials to be kept on file include:

Calendar of days open and closed
Current operating license
Emergency evacuation plan
Licensing reports issued by the California Department of Social Services Operating Procedures and Policies (Parent Handbook)
Summary sheet of annual parent evaluations
Tuition schedule
14 Annual Site Evaluation
The DISTRICT shall conduct an annual site evaluation of CONTRACTOR based on all data, statements and records reasonably necessary to evaluate the program. Results of the annual site evaluation shall be sent to the CONTRACTOR.

15. Reports to the DISTRICT

6.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District) 15 All correspondence relating to this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services for Providers of Extended Child Care Services at Pacifica School District Elementary School Sites shall be sent to the following address:

Pacifica School District
375 Reina Del Mar
Pacifica, CA 94044
Attention: Josephine Peterson
Chief Business Official

6.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: PSD Lease 2022-23 (5036 : Child Care 2022-2023 lease with Pacifica School District)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Second Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $220,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Planning Department is processing a significant number of routine and complex development project applications submitted for City permits. The Planning Department is also the lead department for several active City Council priority initiatives, including but not limited to the preparation of a Quarry Site Specific Plan, the Sharp Park Specific Plan, the comprehensive General Plan Update, and updating the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Planning Department has a key supporting role in many other priority initiatives.

The department currently contracts with two other consulting firms to augment planning staff resources in routine project reviews and CEQA reviews. The cost for these contracts is reimbursed by project applicants. Foreseeing that the projected workload in the Planning Department would exceed available staff resources, and in order to allow Planning staff to continue to implement items identified as City Council priorities, the City Manager recommends the City Council authorize execution of a contract amendment with Good City Company in order to continue work on several long-term planning projects. These long-term projects include the Pacifica School District workforce housing project at 930 Oddstad Boulevard and the 570 Crespi Drive mixed-use project. Good City Company is also supporting Planning Department staff with the processing of several other projects with shorter-term project timelines.

After issuing a Request for Proposals, the City initially engaged Good City Company beginning in October 2020 and the City Manager authorized a consultant services agreement (CSA) with a cost ceiling amount not to exceed $50,000. The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the original CSA on November 22, 2021, which increased the cost ceiling by $70,000 and extended the term of the CSA through June 30, 2022.

7 Packet Pg. 190
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Deny, or authorize a different amount for the proposed amendment to the CSA. This may reduce staff’s ability to rely on its consultants to perform project reviews and/or to complete additional CEQA reviews, which could delay the processing of projects. The impact of this increased workload could also negatively affect staff’s ability to address other general responsibilities, including priorities on the City Council’s adopted Work Plan.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The tasks being performed by Good City Company are not directly associated with any of the projects and initiatives on the City Council’s adopted Work Plan, as development proposal processing is a general governmental responsibility of the City as a local public agency.

Indirectly, this CSA will allow in-house staff resources to devote time to Work Plan initiatives and other general matters assigned to the Planning Department.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The amount of the requested contract amendment ($100,000) is included in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Planning Department Budget as a developer-reimbursed expenditure and requires no additional appropriation. Because the expense is reimbursed by project applicants, there is no net fiscal impact.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Second Amendment - Good City Company (PDF)
First Amendment - Good City Company (PDF)
Original Agreement - Good City Company (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 191

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Second Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Second Amendment") is made and entered into this ________ day of July 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Good City Company, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide on-call planning services and related services; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, CITY and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this Second Amendment to increase the Cost Ceiling in section 2.1 (“Compensation”) and extend the Term in Section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit A, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $ 220,000 (“Cost Ceiling”).

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, “Effective Date” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the first signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the “Term”). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by June 30, 2023.

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Second Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This Second Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

7.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Second Amendment - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT

GOOD CITY COMPANY
By: Date
Aaron Aknin, Principal, Good City Company

7.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Second Amendment - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement) Good City prides itself on being a cost-effective solution for public sector agencies. Staff retains detailed timesheets and works efficiently to ensure the client is getting the best value for the services.
» Director/Principal $235/hour
» Principal Planner/Planning Manager $195/hour
» Economic Development Director $200/hour
» Chief Building Official $145/hour
» Senior Planner/Project Manager $160/hour
» Associate Planner $130/hour
» Assistant Planner $105/hour
» Planning Technician $85/hour
» Administrative Assistant $70/hour
Subconsultant Contracts Direct Billing + 10% oversight fee Rates subject to adjustment January 1st of each year

BILLING
RATES

BILLING RATES
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com

7.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Second Amendment - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "First Amendment") is made and entered into this ______ day of November 2021, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Good City Company, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide on-call planning services and related services; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this First Amendment to increase the Cost Ceiling in section 2.1 (“Compensation”) and extend the completion date identified in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit A, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $ 120,000 (“Cost Ceiling”).

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, “Effective Date” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the first signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the “Term”). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by June 30, 2022.

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

7.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: First Amendment - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_GOOD CITY COMPANY____________________
By: Date
By: Date
Aaron Aknin, Principal, Good City Comany
11/15/21

7.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: First Amendment - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement) - 3 -

EXHIBIT A

7.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: First Amendment - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

7.c
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5040 : Good City Company Second Amendment to Agreement)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approving the professional services agreement between the City of Pacifica and Teri Black & Company, LLC., the executive recruiting firm and direct the City Manager to execute a contract for services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement dated May 5, 2022, to Teri Black & Company, LLC to continue the executive recruiter services; approve budget authority not to exceed $63,400; and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project, based on the attached proposal (Attachment 2).

STAFF CONTACT:

Irene P. Camarena, HR Manager
650-738-7303
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager/Finance and Administrative Services Director 650-738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Earlier this year the City entered into an agreement with Teri Black & Company, LLC (TB&Co) under the City Manager’s authority to conduct the recruitment of the Deputy Director of Public Works, a complex management position in Wastewater operations. Staff solicited multiple quotes from the professional recruiting firms and selected TB&Co to manage this recruitment at the not to exceed budget of $28,400 under the City Manager’s authority covered by salary savings from the Public Works Wastewater Division.

Earlier this month, Chief of Police Dan Steidle announced his intentions to retire, effective July 1, 2022. At the direction of the City Manager, staff reached out to TB&Co to confirm their availability to assist with the Chief of Police Recruitment that would include developing recruitment and selection strategies and process options.

TB&Co is one of the leading public sector recruitment firms specializing in executive search services to cities, counties and special districts throughout the Bay Area and West coast with proven record of successful public safety executive roles placements. TB&Co recently assisted Cities of Palo Alto, City of South San Francisco, City of San Leandro, City of Pleasanton, City of Fresno and City of San Mateo with their Chief of Police Recruitments. The total not to exceed cost estimate for this recruitment work is $35,000. Once added to already completed work related to the Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) recruitment, the total amended contract amount including this additional scope of work will be $63,400. 8 Packet Pg. 208
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The recruitment for Pacifica’s new Police Chief is related the Council’s goals of maintaining a safe community, strong City workforce and engaged community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The not-to-exceed cost of the Chief of Police recruitment $35,000 and includes all administrative, advertising, printing, and mailing cost. The FY 2022-23 Budget includes funds for additional recruitment services, so no additional budget authority is requested at this time. The total contract amount, including this amendment, is $63,400.

ORIGINATED BY:

Human Resources
Administrative Services
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1: A RESOLUTION Teri Black & Company LLC Professional Services Agreement (PDF)
Attachment 2: Teri Black & Company Proposal (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 209
1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

APPROVE AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC., TO CONTINUE PROVIDING

EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, Article 4, Section 2-4.401 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes a civil service personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Teri Black & Company, LLC under the City Manager’s authority to conduct recruitment services for the Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) in May 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police position will become vacant on July 1, 2022, creating a critical need for the additional executive recruitment services; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, to authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Teri Black & Company, LLC., to execute necessary amendments with not to exceed the budget authority of $63,400.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on June 27, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_______________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

8.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment 1: A RESOLUTION Teri Black & Company LLC Professional Services Agreement (5046 : Approving Professional ATTACHMENT 2

City of Pacifica
Recruitment Price Quote
Chief of Police
June 2022

CREDENTIALS, QUALIFICATIONS & COMMITMENT
Teri Black & Company, LLC (TBC) has a solid reputation for providing exemplary service to its clients and has enjoyed great success in recruiting impressive local government professionals for our clients throughout the western United States. As evidence of our clients’ high satisfaction levels, nearly 90% of our projects are generated through repeat business and client referrals. Our Northern California/Bay Area client base is extensive and, in addition to Pacifica, includes the Cities of Santa Rosa, Redwood City, Palo Alto, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Rohnert Park, San Leandro, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Fremont, Pleasanton, Alameda, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Hillsborough, as well as Contra Costa County, and the Towns of Los Gatos and Hillsborough, among numerous others. Our Bay Area executive and senior level law enforcement placements include projects for the cities of South San Francisco, Redwood City, San Mateo, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Jose, Pleasanton, Morgan Hills, and San Leandro among others. In addition, we have recently served in an advisory capacity on police chief selection process for the cities of Palo Alto and Santa Cruz.

Lastly, we will be launching a Chief of Police search for the City of Escondido in the coming weeks.

Because we are driven by a concern for quality results rather than volume, we limit the number of recruitments the firm handles at any given time. In addition, we are careful to only partner with clients that appreciate the value of highly personalized services and the importance of finding qualified candidates who would be a good fit rather than simply attracting individuals who meet minimum qualification criteria.

TBC has an excellent track record for recruiting exceptional candidates and has been successful in consistently attracting diverse candidate pools. In fact, over the last four years, more than 40 percent of our placements were from underrepresented populations. The trust and credibility Teri and her team have earned over the course of two decades is proudly reflected in these results.

Lastly, our commitment to candidate care is incomparable. From initial conversations during the active recruiting period, coaching for final interviews, all the way to professional development debriefings at the end of a process – no other firm invests the amount of time and level of attention in candidates than we do. Our treatment of applicants is a direct reflection of our customers’ values, and we consistently receive feedback that our service is simply unmatched.

TBC will work closely with the City of Pacifica in adjusting and redesigning activities associated with the recruitment in response to COVID-19 public health orders and corresponding protocols throughout the recruitment.

8.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment 2: Teri Black & Company Proposal (5046 : Approving Professional Services Agreement TB&CO) City of Pacifica
Recruitment Quote – June 2022

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work presented represents a comprehensive Chief of Police recruitment that includes the following services:

Phase I
• Develop ideal candidate profile in partnership with the Client and other stakeholders • Design and execute advertising, marketing, and social media campaigns Phase II
• Produce and distribute recruitment brochure (traditional & electronic mail) • Conduct extensive personal outreach activities
Phase III
• Conduct screening interviews
• Develop and deliver written report to Client (highlighting the results of the recruitment and subsequent screening interviews)
Phase IV
• Design and facilitate one (1) day of candidate interviews with the Client (in-person or via Zoom)
• Offer interview coaching sessions and debriefing opportunities to Finalists • Assist Client with final selection deliberations
• Facilitate negotiations and transition details

PROPOSED RECRUITMENT MILESTONES
Activities Completed
Initial meeting/Zoom call with Client; develop Ideal Candidate Profile July Launch recruitment, advertising, marketing, and social media campaigns July Recruitment open; proactive candidate outreach July/August Screening interviews & report results back to client August Finalist interviews in Pacifica or via Zoom August/September Candidate selected, negotiations complete September

8.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment 2: Teri Black & Company Proposal (5046 : Approving Professional Services Agreement TB&CO) City of Pacifica
Recruitment Quote – June 2022

PROFESSIONAL FEES
The professional fee for this assignment goes up to $24,000. This includes all work outlined in Phases I – IV in the proposal’s scope of work. Because of our results-oriented philosophy, the professional fee covers the entire scope of work. Services include conference calls/Zoom meetings for the purposes of gathering stakeholder feedback on candidate profile, briefing client on results of the recruitment, facilitating one day of panel interviews, assisting the client with selection deliberations, and compensation negotiations.

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES1 (NOT TO EXCEED)
Advertising $2,500
Recruitment Brochure & mailing $1,500

Administrative & project support $3,400
Printing & FedEx $ 700
Consultant Travel (mileage - Napa to Pacifica. $1,900
Airfare LAX-Pacifica + up to 2-nights hotel if needed)

Project expenses (NTE) $10,000
Professional fees and expenses are billed in phases as work progresses and expenses are incurred.

Expenses are billed at their actual level and are never marked-up or inflated with special fees.

Background & References
Following the final process activities and the Client’s selection of its top candidate, TBC will assist the client with facilitating a California POST compliant background check. When an external candidate is selected, a background/reference check of this nature entails a review of criminal, civil and driving records, credit report, employment history as well as academic verifications.

In addition, the investigator will also conduct an on-site visit to the candidate’s current or most recent places of employment to personally review personnel records and interview individuals associated with the selected candidate. The investigator also speaks with a number of references (including those supplied by the candidate as well as those independently sought out by the investigator). The client is provided with an extensive written report at the conclusion of the process.

The professional fees for such an in-depth background investigation average $2,500-$3,500 plus expenses and are not included in the TBC recruitment expenses, but we would be happy to assist the Client in securing an experienced public safety investigator who we work with on a regular basis, if needed.
1 Reimbursable Expenses by Category are an estimation. Invoices may reflect actual expense amounts in any given category that are above or below the estimated amount, however, total expenses billed during the project shall not exceed the total “Project Expenses (NTE)” amount as stated.

8.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment 2: Teri Black & Company Proposal (5046 : Approving Professional Services Agreement TB&CO) City of Pacifica
Recruitment Quote – June 2022

Placement Guarantee
If candidates selected and appointed by the City of Pacifica terminates employment for any reason before the completion of the first year of service as a result of a comprehensive TBC recruitment, the firm will provide Pacifica with the necessary consulting services required to secure a replacement. Depending on the nature of the departure, professional consulting services will be provided at no charge or a discounted rate of 25-50% of the original fee.2 Expenses will be covered by the Client.

LEAD CONSULTANT/PRIMARY CONTACT
Senior Recruiter Suzanne Mason and Teri Black will co-lead this recruitment and will be actively supported by member of the TBC support team. Our recruiters maintain strong state and nationwide networks throughout various local government disciplines, and Teri brings exceptional depth in community policing and police reform.

Respectfully submitted:

Teri Black
President
Teri Black & Co., LLC
25500 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 1158
Torrance, CA 90505
Date: June 22, 2022 Tel 424.296.3111
EIN #13-4346458
2 To be negotiated at the time of re-engagement and will be dependent on scope of work needed to refill the position.

8.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment 2: Teri Black & Company Proposal (5046 : Approving Professional Services Agreement TB&CO)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings“ (Status:

CEQA Exempt)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Adopt by Title Only and Waive further reading of “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings” and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

This proposed Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council on June 13, 2022 and is now in order for adoption.

California Government Code section 36813 authorizes the City Council to adopt ordinances or resolutions establishing rules for the conduct of its proceedings. It further provides that the Council “may punish a member or other person for disorderly behavior at a meeting.” Government Code section 38638 provides that “The mayor or other officer in control of the police force in a city shall direct a sufficient number of peace officers to attend and keep order at any public meeting in the city at which, in his or her opinion, a breach of the peace may occur.” The City’s Municipal Code currently includes rules and procedures for City Council meetings at Article 1 within Chapter 1, “City Council” of Title 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. Most of these provisions have not been updated since the 1970s and 1980s.

However, the City has separately adopted City Council Rules and Code of Ethics, which were most recently amended in 2014 (“Council Rules”). The Council Rules also include rules and procedures for City Council meetings and many of the provisions are duplicative of the provisions in Article 1. On January 10, 2022 the Council appointed an ad hoc committee comprised of Councilmember O’Neill and Mayor Pro Tem Bigstyck to make recommendations regarding revisions to the Council Rules.

During those discussions and in advance of those proposed changes to the Council Rules, we are recommending that Article 1 within Chapter 1, “City Council” of Title 2 of the Pacifica 9 Packet Pg. 215
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
Municipal Code be amended to avoid any perceived inconsistency between the Pacifica Municipal Code and the Council Rules. Having one set of rules and procedures will streamline proceedings at City Council meetings and be more understandable to the general public.

However, there are certain provisions in Article 1 that are more appropriately maintained in the City’s Municipal Code and/or will not be duplicative of the Council Rules.

For example, the Council Rules do not include a provision designating members of the Police Department as sergeant at arms and authorizing the sergeant at arms to maintain order and decorum at Council meetings. Accordingly, staff recommends that this designation and authorization, which is currently found at Pacifica Municipal Code section 2-1.119, be maintained in the City’s Municipal Code. This will ensure the police will continue to be able maintain order and decorum at Council meetings, and ensure compliance with Government Code section 38638. Similarly, Article 1 currently contains provisions concerning Council salaries and reimbursements. These are not duplicative of the Council Rules and should be retained as well.

The proposed ordinance includes the provisions from the current version of Article 1 that would be retained. The text of these provisions has not changed aside from adopting non-substantive updates such as using gender neutral language, but they have been renumbered from 2-1.103- 2-1.108.

A copy of the proposed Ordinance is attached.

Provisions currently in the municipal code concerning the following subjects would be repealed if the ordinance is adopted: notices for council meetings and special meetings, study sessions, public access to meetings, disclosure of information from closed sessions, the designation of a presiding officer, the preparation of an agenda, meeting minutes, rules of debate, order, and decorum, rules concerning addressing the council, voting procedures, reconsideration of actions, the appointment of special Council committees, and redevelopment agency member compensation.

Section 2-1.101 of the Municipal Code would be revised to state “All meetings of the Council shall be held in accordance with the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics adopted by Resolution of the Council and which may be amended from time to time.” CEQA:

Introduction of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.

Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may wish to consider the following alternatives:

1. Choose not to adopt “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings”
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
9 Packet Pg. 216
Pacifica City Council 3
June 27, 2022
“An Engaged Community” includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication, and build community post-COVID.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action will not result in any direct fiscal impact.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
9 Packet Pg. 217
Pacifica City Council 4
June 27, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5030)
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING ARTICLE 1 WITHIN CHAPTER 1, “CITY COUNCIL” OF TITLE 2 OF THE PACIFICA

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 36813 authorizes the City Council to establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings; and WHEREAS, Article 1 within Chapter 1, “CITY COUNCIL” of Title 2 of the City’s Municipal Code currently includes provisions concerning rules and procedures at City Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City has separately adopted a City Council Rules and Code of Ethics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics also includes rules and procedures for City Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that Article 1 within Chapter 1, “CITY COUNCIL” of Title 2 of the City’s Municipal Code be amended to refer to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics, thus clarifying that there is a single set of rules and procedures for City Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that an enforcement mechanism be in place in the municipal code to ensure Council meetings proceed in accord with the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics and are not disrupted.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Amended. Article 1 within Chapter 1, “City Council” of Title 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Article 1 in its entirety and replacing Article 1 to read as follows:
“Article 1 – Meetings
Sec. 2-1.101. Meetings.

All meetings of the Council shall be held in accordance with the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics adopted by Resolution of the Council and which may be amended from time to time.

Sec. 2-1.102. Enforcement.

The Chief of Police or such members of the Police Department as the Chief of Police may designate shall be sergeants at arms of the Council and shall carry out all orders given by 9 Packet Pg. 218
Pacifica City Council 5
June 27, 2022
the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the presiding officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council shall require him to do so.

Sec. 2-1.103. - Ordinances, resolutions, and contracts.

All ordinances shall be approved by the City Attorney. No ordinance shall be prepared for presentation to the Council unless ordered by a majority vote of the Council, requested by the Mayor or City Manager, or prepared by the City Attorney on his own initiative. All ordinances, resolutions, and contract documents, before presentation to the Council, shall have been approved as to form and legality by the City Attorney and shall have been examined and approved for administration by the City Manager or his authorized representative.

Sec. 2-1.104. - Dangerous instruments.

No person may enter the chambers of a legislative body, as defined in Section 54952 of the Government Code of the State, or any place where such legislative body is in session, with any firearm, weapon, or explosive device of any nature. The provisions of this section shall not apply to authorized peace officers or to those persons authorized by the Penal Code of the State to carry such weapons.

Sec. 2-1.105. - Council call-up of decisions.

Any decision of a board, commission, committee or City staff member which is appealable to the Council and any action or recommendation of commissions and committees subject to review by the Council pursuant to this Code may be called up for Council review by any Councilmember in accordance with the following procedures:
(a)The Councilmember shall file with the City Clerk a written request for review, with no need to cite the basis for call-up, within the time set by this Code for filing an appeal of the same decision;
(b)The review shall be heard in the same manner as an appeal would be heard under this Code of the same decision, except that no appeal fee shall be assessed; (c)The Councilmember who called up the decision may participate in the review thereof; and (d)The Council may either approve, disapprove, or modify any decision.

Sec. 2-1.106. - Council salaries.

The Council may provide by ordinance for a salary and adjustment in salary in accordance with the provisions of the Government Code of the State.

Sec. 2-1.107. - Council reimbursement for expenses.

The provisions for Council salaries set forth in this article are and shall be exclusive of any amount payable to each member of the Council as reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by him in the performance of official duties for the City.

Sec. 2-1.108. - Adjustment of Council salaries.
(a) Each member of the City Council shall receive a salary in the sum of Seven Hundred and no/100ths ($700.00) Dollars per month, which sum is comprised of the base amount of Four Hundred and no/100ths ($400.00) Dollars as set forth in California Government Code section 36516(a)(2) and adjusted pursuant to California Government Code section 36516(c). The salary is payable at the same time and in the same manner as the salaries are paid to each of the officers and employees of the City.
(b)This section shall go into effect for all members of the City Council pursuant to California Government Code section 36516.5 when one or more members of the City Council becomes eligible for a salary increase by virtue of that member's beginning a new term of office.” Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 9 Packet Pg. 219
Pacifica City Council 6
June 27, 2022
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 220
Pacifica City Council 7
June 27, 2022
* * * * *
(ID # 5030) at 6/27/2022 5:30 PM City Council Regular Meeting 9 Packet Pg. 221

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of Ordinances adding Sections 7-2.214 (Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee) of Title 7 and Chapter 21 (Construction Vehicle Impact Fee) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Move to Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

2. Move to Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Construction Vehicle Impact Fee and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, Associate Engineer
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

These ordinances were introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council under a noticed public hearing held on June 13, 2022 and are now being brought back for adoption.

On the same date, the City Council adopted a resolution titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Setting Rates for the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee and the Construction Vehicle Impact Fee and Adding both Fees to the City’s Master Fee Schedule”.

As stated at that meeting, the City completed engineering studies to quantify the impacts of pavement utility cuts and heavy construction vehicles on City streets. On March 14, 2022, City staff and NCE consultants presented those findings as well as a fee structure during a study session to discuss implementing fees for damage caused by utility pavement cuts and heavy construction vehicle impacts. Staff, again, discussed the fees related to utility cuts and construction vehicle impacts during the City budget, CIP, and Master Fee schedule presentation at the May 23, 2022 City Council meeting. Furthermore, at the public hearing that was held on June 13th, staff and Council discussed Council questions related to the fees and their application to City streets. Following this discussion, the Council introduced the ordinances and adopted the resolution setting the rates and adding these fees to the City’s Master Fee Schedule. 10 Packet Pg. 222
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
It is therefore the City Manager's recommendation to adopt the ordinances entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee” and "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Construction Vehicle Impact Fee" thus amending the City's Municipal Code and allowing for these fees to begin to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2022-23.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt one or both fees; however, this option would mean that persons engaging in pavement damaging activities would not pay their fair share of the costs to mitigate that damage, and therefore is not recommended.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of these actions is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to sea level rise. These fees will help maintain and improve the existing streets.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The completed Studies provide justification for the City to implement these fees as noted in the report. Staff has estimated heavy construction vehicle impact fees could range from $10,000 to $60,000 per year depending on development levels. Utility pavement cut fees could generate $100,000 to $200,000 per year depending on whether large PG&E or telecom projects are completed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
10 Packet Pg. 223
Pacifica City Council 3
June 27, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5029)
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ESTABLISHING A UTILITY PAVEMENT CUT RECOVERY FEE
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement, funded by an annual street maintenance project adopted every year as part of the Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, existing pavements frequently need to be cut in order to access and service utility infrastructure and their underground equipment; and WHEREAS, this type of excavation in paved streets degrades and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance, and repair; and
WHEREAS, the City’s funding sources will not be sufficient to prevent some of the City’s streets from deteriorating due to the impacts of utility cuts; and WHEREAS, the Utility Cut Fee adopted herein is considered a fee for the use of government Property pursuant to Article XIII C, section 1(e)(4), which excludes such fees from the definition of “tax;” and
WHEREAS, in the alternative, the Utility Cut Fee is also be exempt from the definition of “tax” under Article XIII C, section 1(e)(1) because it is a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred to the payor (accessing utilities in the City’s streets) that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege; and
WHEREAS, in the alternative, the Utility Cut Fee is also exempt from the definition of “tax” under Article XIII C, section 1(e)(6) because it is a charged imposed as a condition of property development; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance does not conflict with provisions of State law, including but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 12808 related to interstate telecommunications franchises because the fees hereunder are not charged for the same right granted by State law, but instead are charged to recover costs of mitigating the degradation that the excavation causes to City pavement and the increased cost to the City in reconstructing a street that has been patched following an excavation; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is in conformance with Section 253(C) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which expressly recognizes the authority of local governments to impose reasonable nondiscriminatory fees upon telecommunications providers using the public right-of-way, as well as California Government Code 50030 which specifically authorizes the imposition of a permit fee that does not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged.
10 Packet Pg. 224
Pacifica City Council 4
June 27, 2022
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true, correct, and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Adopted. Section 7-2.214, “Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee,” is hereby added to Article 2 of Chapter 2 of Title 7 “Public Works” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code as follows:

Section 7-2.214 Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee
(a) Purpose of Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.

Excavations in paved streets owned and maintained by the City degrade and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance, and repair. These excavations cause degradation of the streets even where the excavations are refilled and repaired in conformity with applicable standards and requirements. It is appropriate that entities responsible for excavating into the City right of-way bear the burden of the resulting cost of this degradation and shortened life of the surface rather than the taxpayers of the City. In addition, establishment of a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee will create an incentive for utilities to coordinate excavations in the streets. This chapter shall not be construed to relieve those excavating into the City right-of-way of the obligation to fill, repair and properly maintain the location of the excavation. (b) Establishment of Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.

No person shall excavate in a public right-of-way without, in addition to all other requirements of this Code, having first paid to the City a “Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.” The Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be due, as a condition of the permit required by Section 7-2.101.
(c) Amount of Fee.
(1) The rate of the fee shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
(2) Beginning July 2023 and on each July 1st thereafter, the rate of the fee shall increase without further action by the city according to the following formula:

Most Recent ENR
Council-Approved Rate * ___________________________
ENR at Council-Approval
Where the “Council-Approved Rate” is the rate contained in the most recently adopted Impact Fee Schedule, “Most Recent ENR” is the most recently 10 Packet Pg. 225
Pacifica City Council 5
June 27, 2022
published Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area in the Engineering News Record when the calculation is made and “ENR at CouncilApproval” is the Construction Cost Index published for the month in which the Council adopted the Impact Fee Schedule including the “Council-Approved Rate.” The City Manager shall calculate the increased fee annually and give notice of that calculation in the manner required by law for the publication of ordinance of the City Council.
(d) Determination of Payment.

The fees due under this chapter are collected for the restoration and maintenance of City pavement caused by the impacts of utility trench cuts and shall be determined and become due and payable to the City at the time of the issuance of permits required pursuant to this Chapter.
(e) Variance from payment of Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.

Any person subject to the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee may request that the Director of Public Works waive or reduce the requirement of payment of the fee due to individual circumstances that demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis, that the amount of the fee is not reasonably related to the projected impact of the proposed excavation.

The decision of the Director of Public Works may be appealed to the City Manager by letter within five (5) City business days of the date of the Director’s decision. Appeals shall state the name, address, telephone number, and if, available, the email address of the person making the appeal and the reason(s) for the appeal. The failure to appeal the Director’s decision or to file a timely appeal shall render the Director’s decision final and the right to appeal is waived.

The timeliness of an appeal shall be determined from the date the City Manager received said appeal. The decision of the City Manager is final. No fee shall be charged for an appeal. The City Manager may delegate all of the duties of this subsection to another person.
(f) Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee Fund.

The fees paid in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be placed in a special fund to be known as the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee Fund. The revenues from the fees will be used solely for restoration and maintenance of City pavement related to the impacts of utility cuts.
(g) Exceptions.
(1) Excavations in City streets scheduled for pavement structural improvements within two years of the date of excavation shall be exempt from the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.
(2) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged for underground 10 Packet Pg. 226
Pacifica City Council 6
June 27, 2022
utility district projects initiated by the City, or utility line relocations necessitated by City street work projects or by street vacations or abandonments. (3) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged for excavations performed by or for the City Public Works Field Services Department. (4) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged with respect to excavation in a sidewalk or a concrete street.
(5) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged where the proposed work will include resurfacing of all or a significant portion of the public right-ofway where the excavation is made, and the City Engineer approves the resurfacing. A “significant portion of the public right-of-way” means a surface area of the public right-of-way with minimum length and width dimensions as follows: length: 25 feet from the nearest edge of the excavation area; and width:
the full width of each traffic lane if any portion of the lane is within the trench influence area.
(6) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged for repair work required by the City Engineer, or any other relocations required by the City.

Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
10 Packet Pg. 227
Pacifica City Council 7
June 27, 2022
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 10 Packet Pg. 228
Pacifica City Council 8
June 27, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ESTABLISHING A CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement, funded by an annual street maintenance project adopted every year as part of the Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, heavy construction vehicles and equipment associated with new development cause rapid deterioration and worsen pavement conditions; and WHEREAS, heavy construction vehicles required for new development degrade Citymaintained streets and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance, and repair; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that new development pays for the impacts of the construction related to that development on the City’s streets.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true, correct, and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Adopted. Chapter 21, “Construction Vehicle Impact Fee,” is hereby added to Title 8 “Building Regulations” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code as follows:

Chapter 21 - Construction Vehicle Impact Fee
Section 8-21.01 – Authority and Purpose
This Chapter is enacted pursuant to the general police powers of the City and is for the purpose of providing funds to restore City streets, which rapidly deteriorate as a result of the impacts of heavy construction vehicles associated with new development.

Section 8-21.02 – Fee Imposition
The fee imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable to all developments in the City that require a building permit and add new residential or nonresidential building square footage. The fee shall be calculated by reference to the square footage added by the new development.

Section 8-21.04 – Amount of Fee.
(a) The rate of the fee shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council in the manner required by Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq.
10 Packet Pg. 229
Pacifica City Council 9
June 27, 2022
(b) Beginning July 2023 and on each July 1st thereafter, the rate of the fee shall increase without further action by the city according to the following formula:

Most Recent ENR
Council-Approved Rate * ___________________________
ENR at Council-Approval
Where the “Council-Approved Rate” is the rate contained in the most recently adopted Impact Fee Schedule, “Most Recent ENR” is the most recently published Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area in the Engineering News Record when the calculation is made and “ENR at CouncilApproval” is the Construction Cost Index published for the month in which the Council adopted the Impact Fee Schedule including the “Council-Approved Rate.” The City Manager shall calculate the increased fee annually and give notice of that calculation in the manner required by law for the publication of ordinance of the City Council.

Section 8-21.05 – Deposit of Fees
The fees paid in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be placed in a special fund to be known as the Construction Vehicle Impact Fee Fund. The fee revenues will be used to pay for street and road maintenance and improvements related to the impacts of construction vehicles associated with new development.

Section 8-21.06 – Determination of Payment
The fees due under this chapter are collected for the restoration of City pavement due to the impacts of new development and shall be determined and become due and payable to the City at the time of the issuance of any building permit.

Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.
10 Packet Pg. 230
Pacifica City Council 10 June 27, 2022
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 10 Packet Pg. 231
Pacifica City Council 11 June 27, 2022
* * * * *
(ID # 5029) at 6/27/2022 5:30 PM City Council Regular Meeting 10 Packet Pg. 232

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/27/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominium subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would have city-wide applicability and allow residential uses to be established either in the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor or in residential-only buildings on a site that also contains a commercial use (horizontal mixed-use) with approval of a use permit.

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to DENY the appeal, UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, and APPROVE the revised project by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96- 19, and the conditions of approval and MMRP in Exhibits A and B to the Resolution, respectively; and to INTRODUCE, WAIVE the first reading, and READ by title only, an Ordinance included as Attachment B and entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21 to rezone property to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, to add certain residential uses as conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and to approve a development agreement with certain public and private benefits including off-site improvements, to allow construction of a mixed-use commercial and residential project consisting of 3,165 square feet of commercial area and 19 residential condominiums at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).”
STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
11 Packet Pg. 233
Pacifica City Council 2
June 27, 2022
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The following section provides the relevant background of the project as well as discussion of the appeal.

A. BACKGROUND
Brendan and Eamon Murphy (“Applicant”) have submitted an application for construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixed-use development including one two-story mixed-use building with three residential units and 3,165 sf of commercial space, two three-story residential buildings behind the street-facing mixed-use building consisting of 16 townhouse residential units; construction of a freestanding sign; merger of two parcels located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive (APNs 022-162-420 and 022-162-310); removal of five heritage trees; a condominium subdivision; construction of off-site parking, circulation and landscaping improvements at 540 Crespi Drive (the Pacifica Community Center); construction of a wetlands interpretive sign; a development agreement with certain public and developer benefits; a General Plan amendment to revise the “Commercial” land use designation; a zoning text amendment to revise the list of conditional uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and a rezoning to change the zoning classification to the C-2 zoning district (“Project”).

On March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-006 by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention to approve Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization to approve the Project (collectively the “Development Permits”; to recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19; and, to initiate and recommend City Council approval of Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21 necessary to enable construction of the Project (collectively the “Legislative Items”) (Attachment C). The staff report and minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of March 7, 2022, are included as Attachments D and E, respectively. The project plans, color renderings, landscape plans, vesting tentative subdivision map, and other detailed information describing the Project are included within Attachment D.

The Planning Commission also adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Attachments F and G). The City received no public comments on the IS/MND during the public comment period; therefore, the City has not prepared a response to comments document. Henceforth, references to the IS/MND are inclusive of the Initial Study and the MMRP which comprise the Final IS/MND. The CEQA review of the Project is discussed in further detail later in this staff report.

B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On March 17, 2022, Margaret Goodale (hereafter “Appellant”) submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form stating several bases for appeal (“Appeal”), and submitted the applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office, to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project (Attachment H). The Appellant has expressed opposition to approval of the Project and adoption of the IS/MND prepared for the Project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Appellant stated a number of reasons for the Appeal in the Appeal Form, which are summarized by staff below and followed by staff’s responses.
11 Packet Pg. 234
Pacifica City Council 3
June 27, 2022
Basis 1. The Planning Commission approvals violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, including but not limited to substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant adverse impacts on the environment and thus, an environmental impact report must be prepared for the Project.

Staff Response:

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is codified in the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA’s provisions and requirements are further clarified and implemented by the CEQA Guidelines codified in the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”). Where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (i.e., the decision making body considering a discretionary action or project), that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) shall be prepared.

PRC Section 21080(d). As used in CEQA, the term “substantial evidence” means fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. PRC Section 21080(e)(1). Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. PRC Section 21080(e)(2). Where a lead agency determines that a project, which is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration. PRC Section 21080(c). A negative declaration may include project revisions or mitigation measures incorporated into a project to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. (Ibid.)
City staff reviewed the Project for potential application of one or more categorical exemptions from CEQA following staff’s determination that the application was complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. Staff concluded that the Project was not exempt from CEQA, and began preparation of an initial study in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to determine whether any potentially significant effects on the environment would occur as a result of the Project1. The initial study evaluated potential environmental impacts in 21 resource categories and concluded that potentially significant environmental effects could result from the Project in the following resource categories:

Initial Study
(Appendix G)
Section Resource Category
IV Biological Resources
V Cultural Resources
VII Geology and Soils
IX Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
X Hydrology and Water Quality
XIII Noise
XVII Transportation
XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources
1 The Initial Study (IS) and technical appendices prepared for this Project, along with the proposed mitigation measures, are available on the City’s website at
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/environmental_documents. 11 Packet Pg. 235
Pacifica City Council 4
June 27, 2022
Staff’s review and analysis of these potentially significant environmental effects included, but was not limited to, evidence prepared by experts in visual modeling, plant and animal species, air quality, state laws regulating cultural and tribal cultural resources, civil and geotechnical engineering, firefighting, sound modeling, and traffic engineering (IS/MND, Section B). The analyses and conclusions of these experts were set forth in the IS/MND and constitute substantial evidence because they consist of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and/or expert opinions supported by facts. The experts consulted by the City concluded, based on their qualifications and experience, that each potentially significant environmental effect identified in the initial study could be avoided or mitigated to the point where no significant effect on the environment would occur. The measures recommended by these experts to avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects of the Project are contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) approved by the Planning Commission as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2022-006. Condition No. 2 of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2022-006 requires the Applicant to incorporate into the Project all mitigation measures included in the MMRP. The result of the City’s conclusions after completing the initial study was that a mitigated negative declaration should be adopted (i.e., the IS/MND), consistent with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The Appellant has provided no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the IS/MND and MMRP are inadequate to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to less than a significant level. To the contrary, the City has adequately analyzed potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project and identified appropriate mitigation measures in the MMRP to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for all affected resource categories. The City’s analysis is based on substantial evidence as set forth in the IS/MND and MMRP, as well as the Planning Commission staff report and in testimony at the public hearing on March 7, 2022. There is no factual or legal basis to require preparation of an EIR for the Project. The City concluded, based on substantial evidence, that no potentially significant environmental impacts would result from the Project with the incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that an EIR is not required to comply with CEQA and to reject this basis for appeal.

Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis of compliance with CEQA and mitigation of all potentially significant environmental impacts, the Applicant has proposed a revision to the Project that would further reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. Chapter IV Biological Resources of the IS/MND identified a potentially significant environmental impact from filling of waters of the United States and/or waters of the State (i.e., jurisdictional wetlands). While the overall Project design has avoided jurisdictional wetlands in areas where building, paving, and grading are proposed, the Project still proposed an emergency stormwater overflow inlet and pipe in the otherwise undeveloped extreme southern portion of the site (see Sheet TM-3 of the vesting tentative map) in an area that would affect jurisdictional wetlands. The IS/MND accordingly identified Mitigation Measures IV-3 and IV-4 as necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts of such fill. These mitigation measures required the Applicant to obtain a Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction activity that would fill jurisdictional wetlands. Obtaining these permits typically requires mitigation as identified by the permitting agency to offset the impacts of wetlands loss.

The Applicant has proposed a revision to the Project (Attachment I) that would relocate the emergency stormwater overflow inlet and pipe westward approximately 44 feet southwest to an area in the southwestern corner of the Project site that is not located within jurisdictional wetlands. The revised wetlands delineation line is demonstrated on the sheets contained in 11 Packet Pg. 236
Pacifica City Council 5
June 27, 2022
Attachment I. The Applicant identified this opportunity to relocate the inlet and pipe by performing an updated, focused wetlands delineation in this area of the Project site (Attachment J). The City has peer reviewed this updated wetlands delineation and determined that it was performed in accordance with the standards applicable to such delineations and there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the relocated inlet and pipe would not be located within jurisdictional wetlands (Attachment K). With inclusion of the Project revision as proposed by the Applicant, the proposed Project would eliminate all potential fill of jurisdictional wetlands, would not trigger a requirement for a Section 404 or Section 401 permit, and would not require mitigation to offset fill of wetlands. Staff recommends that any action by the City Council to approve the Project include approval of the revised Project plans in Attachment I. The Council should note, however, that Condition of Approval No. 51 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C) would require the Applicant to construct a raised walkway structure along the southern boundary of the developed portion of the Project site that projects into the wetlands area at the southern half of the site. Inclusion of this condition of approval would result in potential impacts to jurisdiction wetlands and would trigger the aforementioned Section 404 and Section 401 permits for wetlands impacts.

Therefore, if the City Council desires to approve the Project without impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, it may consider removal of Condition of Approval No. 52 in the draft resolution of approval (Attachment A).

Basis 2. The Planning Commission approvals violate the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the City of Pacifica Housing Element, the City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program (Ordinance No. 746-C.S.), and the City of Pacifica Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Staff Response:

The Appellant has provided no evidence or explanation of the claims made that the Planning Commission’s action on March 7, 2022, violated the PMC, the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program, or the Heritage Tree Ordinance.

The following discussion addresses these points in greater detail:

1. Pacifica Municipal Code Compliance
The Planning Commission’s approval of the Project included all necessary permits based on the proposed development to comply with the PMC, which included a Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Sign Permit, Parking Exception, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C) included recitals that identified the specific PMC provisions triggering approval of the permits, and also included detailed findings based on substantial evidence to support approval of each permit.

To the extent that certain elements of the Project, such as the configuration of residential development outside of the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor, would not be consistent with the PMC, the Planning Commission’s action on March 7, 2022, initiated and recommended City Council approval of a General Plan amendment, rezoning, and zoning text amendment such that eventual approval of same would ensure Project compliance with the PMC. The Planning Commission also made findings related to and recommended approval of a development agreement as required by PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 50.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Planning Commission’s action was compliant with the PMC and to reject this basis for appeal. 11 Packet Pg. 237
Pacifica City Council 6
June 27, 2022

2. Consistency with the Housing Element of the General Plan Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C) included findings describing how the Project would be consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, including Housing Element Policy No. 4.D.i (Prioritize in-fill residential development) and Policy No. 8.A (Prioritize mixed-use residential development on in-fill sites). It also identified how the Project, by constructing 19 housing units, would make a sizable contribution to accomplishing the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), a key component of the Housing Element.

Resolution No. 2022-006 stated that the Project would be among the largest residential projects approved by the City of Pacifica in recent years.

According to the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR) on implementation of the Housing Element (a report that focuses on the City’s progress to accomplish its RHNA), during the years 2015 through 2021, the largest project approved by the City was a 24-unit condominium townhome project at 801 Fassler Avenue. The Project would be the next largest project approved by the City since 2015, the start of the current Housing Element planning period which runs from 2015 through 2023. Additionally, the Project would be the first since 2017 to include deed-restricted affordable housing units, which would include two units affordable to persons with low incomes, and one unit affordable to persons with moderate incomes. The Project would also make a $272,000 contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund to support future affordable housing development activities by the City as a component of the development agreement.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and to reject this basis for appeal.

3. City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program Compliance The City’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program is codified in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47. PMC section 9-4.4702 provides that a housing project with eight or more dwelling units shall restrict for occupancy by very low, lower or moderate income households not less than 15 percent of the total units.

The Project includes 19 residential units and is required to provide to restrict for occupancy by very low, lower or moderate income households three dwelling units (i.e., the below market rate, or “BMR,” units). The Project description contained in the Planning Commission staff report and associated attachments from the March 7, 2022, public hearing, indicated that the Project would include three BMR units. Condition of Approval No. 20 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C) also included additional requirements to comply with specific elements of the BMR (Inclusionary) Program, such as but not limited to execution of a legal agreement to restrict sale and occupancy of the BMR units to qualifying households, and compliance with physical standards for the BMR units. Section 5.1.1 of Development Agreement DA-4-21 also includes additional provisions to specify the affordability level and location of each BMR unit in the Project in a manner consistent with PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project is compliant with the City’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program and to reject this basis for appeal.
11 Packet Pg. 238
Pacifica City Council 7
June 27, 2022

4. Heritage Tree Ordinance Compliance
Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) section 4-12.07(a) provides that the body authorized to grant a discretionary development approval shall implement the Heritage Tree Ordinance. This process for discretionary projects differs from the standard heritage tree permit process whereby staff reviews and approves/denies applications for heritage tree removals. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C) included authorization to remove three heritage trees in accordance with PMC section 4-

12.07(a). Therefore, the Project complied with requirements applicable to heritage trees based on the information submitted during the initial project application in 2016.

In an abundance of caution in response to the Appeal, the Applicant prepared an updated arborist report and tree protection Plan (Attachment L) to update the heritage tree evaluation given the period of time that had passed since initial project application.

The updated report describes the heritage trees present on the Project site, those heritage trees that are proposed for removal with the Project, and measures to protect the heritage trees that will remain. Since the initial project application, the report found that some trees have grown to become heritage trees, while others have declined and have completely died.

In total, 5 of the 13 heritage trees evaluated in the updated report are proposed for removal, an increase from 3 heritage trees approved for removal by the Planning Commission. The report erroneously concludes on page 3 that seven heritage trees will be removed; however, it appears the conclusion was not updated after staff’s urging to preserve and protect two heritage trees that had been initially identified for removal. A review of the preceding discussion indicates only five heritage trees identified for removal.

Pages 16 through 19 of the updated report identify measures that will protect heritage trees during construction including exclusion fencing during construction and pavers or permeable paving surrounding the trees after construction.

Therefore, based on the Planning Commission’s action, and the City Council’s action upon approval of the Project in reliance on the updated arborist report and tree protection plan, the Project would comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Basis 3. The Project violates the General Plan.

Staff Response:

The Appellant has provided no evidence or explanation of the claim that the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project on March 7, 2022, violated the General Plan. To the contrary, the Planning Commission adopted findings of General Plan consistency in Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C), as summarized below:
• Circulation Element Policy No. 4: Provide safe and consistent access for the development.
• Circulation Element Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation. • Conservation Element Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation. • Community Design Element Policy No. 1: Encourage the upgrading and maintenance of existing neighborhoods.
• Community Facilities Element Policy No. 2: Maintain and improve the present level of City services.
11 Packet Pg. 239
Pacifica City Council 8
June 27, 2022
• Housing Element Policy Nos. 4.D.i and 8.A: Prioritize in-fill residential development. • Land Use Element Policy No. 8: Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and to reject this basis for appeal.

Basis 4. The City’s General Plan is fatally flawed and internally inconsistent.

Staff Response:

The Appellant has provided no evidence or explanation of the claim that the City’s General Plan is fatally flawed and internally inconsistent. The Planning Commission’s approval of the Project on March 7, 2022, included findings of General Plan consistency in Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C), demonstrating how the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and how the General Plan contained relevant, internally consistent policies to regulate the development that would occur with the Project upon City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21. The response to Basis 3, above, is hereby incorporated by reference to demonstrate how the Project would be consistent with the General Plan.

C. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE IN THE APPEAL PROCESS
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3208, after considering the appeal, the Council may approve, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, the Council should deny the appeal and adopt the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal and deny the Project, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal by staff and brought back to Council at a later date.

D. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS AND DEVELOPMENT

PERMITS
Legislative Items
The Planning Commission’s action on March 7, 2022, included a recommendation that the City Council approve the Legislative Items, consisting of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-

21. Approval of the Legislative Items would require adoption of the Resolution included as Attachment A to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, and introduction and adoption of the Proposed Ordinance included as Attachment B to approve the other Legislative Items.

The following discussion summarizes the components of each Legislative Item.

1. General Plan GPA-96-19
The Project would include a General Plan amendment to amend the “Commercial” land use designation in the General Plan to allow residential development on a commercial site to occur in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor. The General Plan amendment would amend page 33 of the General Plan, as follows (new text in underline, deleted text in strikethrough):
11 Packet Pg. 240
Pacifica City Council 9
June 27, 2022
“Commercial – Indicates the variety of potential commercial uses the City might attract, including visitor-serving commercial, retail commercial, office, heavy commercial and light industrial. The type of commercial use recommended for a site is stated in the General Plan Land Use Description. Mixed residential and commercial uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations on the same site (horizontal mixed use)the dwelling units are located above the commercial uses. Intensity of residential development shall be regulated with a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit.”
The General Plan amendment would apply to all property in the City designated as “Commercial” in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Allowable uses and development standards on any site so designated would continue to be regulated by the applicable zoning district which may allow (C-2, O zoning) or disallow (C-1, C-3 zoning) residential uses to be mixed on the same site as commercial uses.

2. Rezoning RZ-194-16
The Project would rezone the Project site from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district. The M-1 zoning district is subject to the allowable uses in the C-3 (Service Commercial) zoning district codified in PMC section 9-4.1201 which expressly prohibit residential uses. The proposed rezoning would cause the Project site to be subject to the allowable uses in the C-2 zoning district codified in PMC section 9-4.1101 which, upon approval of the proposed zoning text amendment, would allow mixed-use commercial and residential development on the Project site.

3. Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19
The Project would include a zoning text amendment to add a new subsection (11) to section 9-

4.1101(b) of the PMC to add a new conditional use to the C-2 zoning district, as follows:
“One or more dwelling units on the same lot or parcel as a commercial use when the residential use is either located in the same building as the commercial use above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) or in other locations on the same lot or parcel (horizontal mixed use).”
The zoning text amendment would apply to all property in the City zoned as C-2 and would by reference also apply to properties zoned as O (Professional Office) as noted above. The zoning text amendment would not alter the allowable uses in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district where residential uses mixed with commercial uses on the same site would continue to be required within the same building as a commercial use, above the ground floor (vertical mixed-use). Residential uses would continue to be prohibited in the C-3 (Service Commercial) zoning district.

4. Development Agreement DA-4-21
The Project is seeking approval of a development agreement to establish certain developer benefits and public benefits (Attachment M). These include, but are not limited to, developer benefits including vested rights to proceed with development under the City’s current land use regulations for the term of the development agreement (typically, vesting occurs only after issuance of a building permit and commencement of construction), and term of up to five years with an initial term of three years and a provision for a two-year extension. Public benefits include, but are not limited to, an affordable housing contribution in excess of the minimum requirements of the City’s below-market rate (BMR) inclusionary zoning requirements; a lease 11 Packet Pg. 241
Pacifica City Council 10 June 27, 2022
and associated payments to the City for use of the Community Center driveway at 540 Crespi Drive; improvements to the Community Center property including construction of off-street parking spaces, a drop-off location at the front of the Community Center building, and landscaping improvements; and, wetlands interpretive signage at the rear of the project site.

Development Permits
The Planning Commission’s action on March 7, 2022, also included approval of the Development Permits for the Project, consisting of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization. Approval of the Development Permits would take effect upon the effective date of an ordinance to approval the Legislative Items (which would occur after adoption of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19).

The analysis and findings for approval of the Development Permits are contained in the Planning Commission staff report from March 7, 2022, included as Attachment D, and incorporated fully herein by reference. Except, however, that staff recommends approving the revised location for the emergency stormwater overflow inlet and pipe as indicated in Attachment I. The revision is extremely minor and does not change any of the analysis or findings for approval of the Project as reviewed by the Planning Commission.

E. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments received prior to agenda packet publication are included as Attachment N.

F. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires public agencies to evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts prior to approving development projects and undertaking certain other discretionary activities. Pursuant to Section 21064.5 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) may be prepared for a project when the initial study (“IS”) identifies potentially significant environmental impacts but revisions in the project plans made or agreed to by the applicant before the MND is released for public review would avoid or mitigate all such potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project, as revised, may have a significant environmental impact.

The City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) (Attachment F) for the Project and made it available for public review and comment for a 30-day period from December 8, 2021, through January 10, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126) 2 . Staff
thoroughly reviewed potential impacts to all environmental factors included in the IS checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). The IS/MND for the Project identified potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. In the case of each potentially significant impact identified in the IS/MND, staff, together with its outside CEQA consultants and experts, was able to develop a mitigation measure or measures which would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND are included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) (Attachment G). Compliance with the MMRP is also a condition of approval. The City did not receive any public or agency comments on the IS/MND during the public review and comment period. Therefore, staff has not prepared a response to comments which is frequently a part of a Final IS/MND.
2 Ibid.
11 Packet Pg. 242
Pacifica City Council 11 June 27, 2022
As it pertains to potential development of sites other than the Project site as a result of the General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment, as indicated in the IS/MND prepared for the Project and in the Planning Commission staff report, mixed-use commercial and residential development on the same lot or parcel would continue to be a conditional use subject to approval of a use permit, which is a discretionary permit. The use permit review and approval process, because it involves a discretionary permit, would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Consequently, development of new residential uses that may result from the General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment on sites other than the Project site would be subject to site-specific environmental review and would not be allowed by-right by the proposed General Plan amendment or zoning text amendment.

Based on substantial evidence in the record, implementation of the mitigation measures as incorporated in the final MMRP (Attachment G) will reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the IS/MND to a less than significant level. Moreover, action by the City Council to approve the project revision discussed in Section B of the staff report and depicted in Attachment I, and/or to remove Condition No. 51 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C) would reduce or eliminate potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, reducing impacts below those identified in the IS/MND. Staff would prepare a final errata for the IS/MND to remove Mitigation Measures IV-3 and IV-4 from the MMRP as well as discussion related to jurisdictional wetlands impacts in the event the City Council both approves the project revision and eliminations Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 51. These revisions would reflect that the Project as approved would not result in biological resources impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.

Upon adoption of the IS/MND by the City Council, the City will have satisfied the requirements of CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

G. STAFF SUMMARY
Staff believes there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s actions as discussed above. Staff also believes there is substantial evidence to support the adoption of an IS/MND and MMRP for the Project to comply with CEQA. Staff further believes the City Council should approve General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4- 21 to enable development of the Project as approved by the Planning Commission, except as amended as discussed in the preceding staff report to relocate an emergency storm water inlet and pipe to an area outside of jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s actions on the Project, as well as adopt the attached resolution and introduce the attached ordinance approving the Project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission approval of the Development Permits. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The proposed project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.
11 Packet Pg. 243
Pacifica City Council 12 June 27, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct impact since all costs would be borne by the project Applicant.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (DOCX) Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (DOCX)
Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Staff Report (omitting Attachments A, G, I, and K) - March 7, 2022 (PDF)
Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (PDF) Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (PDF)
Attachment G - MMRP and Final IS/MND Memorandum (PDF)
Attachment H - Appeal Form (PDF)
Attachment I - Revised Project Plans(PDF)
Attachment J - Updated Wetland Delineation (PDF)
Attachment K - City Peer Review of Updated Wetlands Delineation (PDF) Attachment L - Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan (PDF) Attachment M - Proposed Development Agreement (DOCX)
Attachment N - Public Comments (PDF)
11 Packet Pg. 244
1 RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF AND

APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-811-16, USE PERMIT UP-76-16, PARKING EXCEPTION PE-183-19, SIGN PERMIT S-129- 19, VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SUB-233-16, AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION; AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-96- 19 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DEFINITION FOR “COMMERCIAL” TO ALLOW CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DEVLEOPMENT THEREIN; AND TO APPROVE

CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING OF 3,165 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND 19 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT 570 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-310) AND CERTAIN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 540 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-420.
________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Brendan Murphy (“Applicant”)
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixeduse development including one two-story mixed-use building with three residential units and 3,165 sf of commercial space, two three-story residential buildings behind the street-facing mixed-use building consisting of 16 townhouse residential units; construction of a freestanding sign; merger of two parcels located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive (APNs 022-162-420 and 022-162-310); removal of five heritage trees; a condominium subdivision; construction of off-site parking, circulation and landscaping improvements at 540 Crespi Drive; construction of a wetlands interpretive sign; a development agreement with certain public and developer benefits; a General Plan amendment to revise the “Commercial” land use designation; a zoning text amendment to revise the list of conditional uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and a rezoning to change the zoning classification to the C-2 zoning district (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendment would revise the “Commercial” land use designation to allow for residential dwelling units in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would add a provision under “Conditional Uses” for the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district in PMC Section 9-4.1101(b) that would align with the proposed General Plan amendment and would allow for residential dwelling units in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor; and WHEREAS, the proposed Rezoning would change the zoning classification of the Project site from M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district to allow mixed-use commercial and residential development which are currently prohibited in the M-1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement provide for public and developer benefits resulting from negotiations between the City of Pacifica (“City”) and Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit because it would involve new construction in a commercial zoning district pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3201(a) and because it would include construction of a clustered housing development pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2403(a); and

11.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 2 WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Use Permit because it would include residential uses pursuant to the proposed zoning text amendment to PMC section 9-4.1101(b), because the use would abut an R district pursuant to PMC section 9-4.1102(i), and because it would include a residential clustered housing development pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2403(a); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Parking Exception because the Applicant requests an exception to off-street parking requirements pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2824(a); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Sign Permit because it would construct a freestanding sign pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2906(b); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map because it would subdivide airspace into five or more parcels (i.e., condominiums) pursuant to PMC section 10-1.302; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.1 and Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines located in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, the City, as CEQA lead agency, determined that prior to considering the approval of the Project that an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated December 2021 to consider, identify and analyze all potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126), which concluded that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources, and that all the potentially significant impacts of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the availability of the IS/MND and its intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration to and sought comments from all interested individuals and agencies on the IS/MND as required by CEQA by (i) Publishing “Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 570 Crespi Drive Project in the City of Pacifica” (“NOI”) in the Pacifica Tribune newspaper on December 8, 2021; (ii) Submission of the NOI to the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo for posting; (iii) Provision of copies of the NOI to individuals and organizations that previously submitted written requests for the notice; (iv) Publication of a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126; and, (v) Posting of the draft IS/MND on the City of Pacifica Planning Department webpage; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described notices provided, the City made the IS/MND available for a 30-day review and comment period that ran from December 8, 2021, to January 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City received no public or agency comment letters on the IS/MND during the 30- day public comment period; because no comments were received during the public comment period, the City has not prepared a Response to Comments (“RTC”) document to respond to comment letters received on the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final IS/MND consisting of the IS/MND and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) which includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, along with the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measures,

11.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 3 the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign-off that the mitigation measure has been implemented; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference, and adopted Resolution No. 2022-006 by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention to approve Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization to approve the Project, and to initiate and recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2022- 006 was filed on March 17, 2022 (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the City Council’s intent to hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the Project as required by law by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in the Pacifica Tribune on April 27, 2022, and by mailing the Notice of Public Hearing to 332 surrounding property owners, occupants and interested parties on April 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the IS/MND and MMRP prior to making its decision to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2022, and continued the public hearing to June 27, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 27, 2022, to consider the Project and the Appeal, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports and other related materials and oral and written testimony at the hearing.

3. The IS/MND and MMRP have been prepared, circulated for public review, and adopted pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

4. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the IS/MND, MMRP and all written documentation and public comments prior to approval of the proposed Project and finds the IS/MND reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

5. The IS/MND constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete document in compliance with all legal standards.

11.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on March 7, 2022, and makes the following findings pertaining to its denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the Project:

Basis 1. The Planning Commission approvals violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, including but not limited to substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant adverse impacts on the environment and thus, an environmental impact report must be prepared for the Project.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is codified in the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA’s provisions and requirements are further clarified and implemented by the CEQA Guidelines codified in the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”). Where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (i.e., the decision making body considering a discretionary action or project), that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) shall be prepared. PRC Section 21080(d). As used in CEQA, the term “substantial evidence” means fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.

PRC Section 21080(e)(1). Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. PRC Section 21080(e)(2). Where a lead agency determines that a project, which is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration.

PRC Section 21080(c). A negative declaration may include project revisions or mitigation measures incorporated into a project to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. (Ibid.) City staff reviewed the Project for potential application of one or more categorical exemptions from CEQA following staff’s determination that the application was complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. Staff concluded that the Project was not exempt from CEQA, and began preparation of an initial study in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to determine whether any potentially significant effects on the environment would occur as a result of the Project. The initial study evaluated potential environmental impacts in 21 resource categories and concluded that potentially significant environmental effects could result from the Project in the following resource categories:

Initial Study
(Appendix G) Section Resource Category
IV Biological Resources
V Cultural Resources
VII Geology and Soils
IX Hazards and Hazardous Materials
X Hydrology and Water Quality
XIII Noise
XVII Transportation
XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources

11.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 5 Staff’s review and analysis of these potentially significant environmental effects included, but was not limited to, evidence prepared by experts in visual modeling, plant and animal species, air quality, state laws regulating cultural and tribal cultural resources, civil and geotechnical engineering, firefighting, sound modeling, and traffic engineering (IS/MND, Section B). The analyses and conclusions of these experts were set forth in the IS/MND and constitute substantial evidence because they consist of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and/or expert opinions supported by facts. The experts consulted by the City concluded, based on their qualifications and experience, that each potentially significant environmental effect identified in the initial study could be avoided or mitigated to the point where no significant effect on the environment would occur. The measures recommended by these experts to avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects of the Project are contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) approved by the Planning Commission as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2022-006. Condition No. 2 of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2022-006 requires the Applicant to incorporate into the Project all mitigation measures included in the MMRP. The result of the City’s conclusions after completing the initial study was that a mitigated negative declaration should be adopted (i.e., the IS/MND), consistent with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The Appellant has provided no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the IS/MND and MMRP are inadequate to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to less than a significant level. To the contrary, the City has adequately analyzed potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project and identified appropriate mitigation measures in the MMRP to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for all affected resource categories. The City’s analysis is based on substantial evidence as set forth in the IS/MND and MMRP, as well as the Planning Commission staff report and in testimony at the public hearing on March 7, 2022. There is no factual or legal basis to require preparation of an EIR for the Project. The City concluded, based on substantial evidence, that no potentially significant environmental impacts would result from the Project with the incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that an EIR is not required to comply with CEQA and to reject this basis for appeal.

Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis of compliance with CEQA and mitigation of all potentially significant environmental impacts, the Applicant has proposed a revision to the Project that would further reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. Chapter IV Biological Resources of the IS/MND identified a potentially significant environmental impact from filling of waters of the United States and/or waters of the State (i.e., jurisdictional wetlands). While the overall Project design has avoided jurisdictional wetlands in areas where building, paving, and grading are proposed, the Project still proposed an emergency stormwater overflow inlet and pipe in the otherwise undeveloped extreme southern portion of the site (see Sheet TM-3 of the vesting tentative map) in an area that would affect jurisdictional wetlands. The IS/MND accordingly identified Mitigation Measures IV-3 and IV-4 as necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts of such fill. These mitigation measures required the Applicant to obtain a Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction activity that would fill jurisdictional wetlands. Obtaining these permits typically requires mitigation as identified by the permitting agency to offset the impacts of wetlands loss.

The Applicant has proposed a revision to the Project (Attachment I of the staff report) that would relocate the emergency stormwater overflow inlet and pipe westward approximately 44 feet southwest to an area in the southwestern corner of the Project site that is not located within jurisdictional wetlands. The revised wetlands delineation line is demonstrated on the sheets contained in Attachment I of the staff report. The Applicant identified this opportunity to relocate the inlet and pipe by performing an updated, focused wetlands delineation in this area of the Project site (Attachment J of the staff report). The City has peer reviewed this updated wetlands delineation and determined that it was performed in accordance

11.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 6 with the standards applicable to such delineations and there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the relocated inlet and pipe would not be located within jurisdictional wetlands (Attachment K of the staff report). With inclusion of the Project revision as proposed by the Applicant, the proposed Project would eliminate all potential fill of jurisdictional wetlands, would not trigger a requirement for a Section 404 or Section 401 permit, and would not require mitigation to offset fill of wetlands.

Basis 2. The Planning Commission approvals violate the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the City of Pacifica Housing Element, the City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program (Ordinance No. 746-C.S.), and the City of Pacifica Heritage Tree Ordinance.

The Appellant has provided no evidence or explanation of the claims made that the Planning Commission’s action on March 7, 2022, violated the PMC, the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program, or the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The following discussion addresses these points in greater detail:

1. Pacifica Municipal Code Compliance
The Planning Commission’s approval of the Project included all necessary permits based on the proposed development to comply with the PMC, which included a Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Sign Permit, Parking Exception, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 (Attachment C of the staff report) included recitals that identified the specific PMC provisions triggering approval of the permits, and also included detailed findings based on substantial evidence to support approval of each permit.

To the extent that certain elements of the Project, such as the configuration of residential development outside of the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor, would not be consistent with the PMC, the Planning Commission’s action on March 7, 2022, initiated and recommended City Council approval of a General Plan amendment, rezoning, and zoning text amendment such that eventual approval of same would ensure Project compliance with the PMC.

The Planning Commission also made findings related to and recommended approval of a development agreement as required by PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 50.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Planning Commission’s action was compliant with the PMC and to reject this basis for appeal.

2. Consistency with the Housing Element of the General Plan Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 included findings describing how the Project would be consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, including Housing Element Policy No. 4.D.i (Prioritize in-fill residential development) and Policy No. 8.A (Prioritize mixeduse residential development on in-fill sites). It also identified how the Project, by constructing 19 housing units, would make a sizable contribution to accomplishing the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), a key component of the Housing Element. Resolution No. 2022-006 stated that the Project would be among the largest residential projects approved by the City of Pacifica in recent years.

According to the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR) on implementation of the Housing Element (a report that focuses on the City’s progress to accomplish its RHNA), during the years 2015 through 2021, the largest project approved by the City was a 24-unit condominium

11.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 7 townhome project at 801 Fassler Avenue. The Project would be the next largest project approved by the City since 2015, the start of the current Housing Element planning period which runs from 2015 through 2023. Additionally, the Project would be the first since 2017 to include deedrestricted affordable housing units, which would include two units affordable to persons with low incomes, and one unit affordable to persons with moderate incomes. The Project would also make a $272,000 contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund to support future affordable housing development activities by the City as a component of the development agreement.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and to reject this basis for appeal.

3. City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program Compliance The City’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program is codified in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47. PMC section 9-4.4702 provides that a housing project with eight or more dwelling units shall restrict for occupancy by very low, lower or moderate income households not less than 15 percent of the total units.

The Project includes 19 residential units and is required to provide to restrict for occupancy by very low, lower or moderate income households three dwelling units (i.e., the below market rate, or “BMR,” units). The Project description contained in the Planning Commission staff report and associated attachments from the March 7, 2022, public hearing, indicated that the Project would include three BMR units. Condition of Approval No. 20 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 also included additional requirements to comply with specific elements of the BMR (Inclusionary) Program, such as but not limited to execution of a legal agreement to restrict sale and occupancy of the BMR units to qualifying households, and compliance with physical standards for the BMR units. Section 5.1.1 of Development Agreement DA-4-21 also includes additional provisions to specify the affordability level and location of each BMR unit in the Project in a manner consistent with PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project is compliant with the City’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program and to reject this basis for appeal.

4. Heritage Tree Ordinance Compliance
Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) section 4-12.07(a) provides that the body authorized to grant a discretionary development approval shall implement the Heritage Tree Ordinance. This process for discretionary projects differs from the standard heritage tree permit process whereby staff reviews and approves/denies applications for heritage tree removals. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 included authorization to remove three heritage trees in accordance with PMC section 4-12.07(a). Therefore, the Project complied with requirements applicable to heritage trees based on the information submitted during the initial project application in 2016.

In an abundance of caution in response to the Appeal, the Applicant prepared an updated arborist report and tree protection Plan to update the heritage tree evaluation given the period of time that had passed since initial project application. The updated report describes the heritage trees present on the Project site, those heritage trees that are proposed for removal with the Project, and measures to protect the heritage trees that will remain. Since the initial project application, the report found that some trees have grown to become heritage trees, while others have declined and have completely died.

11.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 8 In total, 5 of the 13 heritage trees evaluated in the updated report are proposed for removal.

Pages 16 through 19 of the updated report identify measures that will protect heritage trees during construction including exclusion fencing during construction and pavers or permeable paving surrounding the trees after construction.

Therefore, based on the Planning Commission’s action, and the City Council’s action upon approval of the Project in reliance on the updated arborist report and tree protection plan, the Project would comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Basis 3. The Project violates the General Plan.

The Appellant has provided no evidence or explanation of the claim that the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project on March 7, 2022, violated the General Plan. To the contrary, the Planning Commission adopted findings of General Plan consistency in Resolution No. 2022-006, as summarized below:
• Circulation Element Policy No. 4: Provide safe and consistent access for the development. • Circulation Element Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation. • Conservation Element Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation. • Community Design Element Policy No. 1: Encourage the upgrading and maintenance of existing neighborhoods.
• Community Facilities Element Policy No. 2: Maintain and improve the present level of City services.
• Housing Element Policy Nos. 4.D.i and 8.A: Prioritize in-fill residential development. • Land Use Element Policy No. 8: Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and to reject this basis for appeal.

Basis 4. The City’s General Plan is fatally flawed and internally inconsistent.

The Appellant has provided no evidence or explanation of the claim that the City’s General Plan is fatally flawed and internally inconsistent. The Planning Commission’s approval of the Project on March 7, 2022, included findings of General Plan consistency in Resolution No. 2022-006, demonstrating how the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and how the General Plan contained relevant, internally consistent policies to regulate the development that would occur with the Project upon City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21. The response to Basis 3, above, is hereby incorporated by reference to demonstrate how the Project would be consistent with the General Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby certify that the IS/MND has been prepared in accordance and full compliance with CEQA, has been made available and circulated via the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2021120126) for review and comment by interested members of the public and relevant agencies as required by law, and has been presented to and reviewed and considered by this City Council prior to the Council’s decision on the Project. Therefore, the City Council does hereby find that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the IS/MND and comments received thereon), that there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as revised and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment and adopts the IS/MND entitled “570 Crespi

11.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 9 Drive Project Initial Study” dated December 2021, and also adopts the MMRP dated January 2022 and included as Exhibit B to this Resolution, as the valid environmental review for this Project. The IS/MND and MMRP are herein incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Planning Department of the City of Pacifica, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes Planning Department staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings related to General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19:

1. General Plan Consistency
The proposed General Plan amendment would be consistent with the following General Plan policies:
a. Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation (Circulation Element #15); b. Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood (Land Use Element #8); and
c. Prioritize in-fill residential development (Housing Element #4.D.i and 8.A).

The proposed General Plan amendment would increase the flexibility of mixed-use projects in the Commercial land use designation by allowing residential uses to be located in places other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor. The increased flexibility to design projects in this manner will result in site planning and placement of residential and commercial uses in their optimal respective locations, rather than constraining them to the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor (as currently required), which would promote orderly growth in land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment would protect and enhance neighborhood character by allowing multiple smaller scale buildings that better fit into the existing developed environment of a neighborhood, which would protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby approve General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19 to amend the “Commercial” land use designation as provided on page 33 of the General Plan, as follows (underlined text indicates an addition, strikethrough text indicates a deletion):
“Commercial – Indicates the variety of potential commercial uses the City might attract, including visitorserving commercial, retail commercial, office, heavy commercial and light industrial. The type of commercial use recommended for a site is stated in the General Plan Land Use Description. Mixed residential and commercial uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations on the same site (horizontal mixed use)the dwelling units are located above the commercial uses. Intensity of residential development shall be regulated with a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that none of the following findings can be made that would preclude issuance of a site development permit under PMC Section 9-4.3204:

1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood.

11.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 10 The Project is located on Crespi Drive, which contains public facilities, commercial, multi-family residential, single-family residential, and mixed-use land uses in the vicinity of the Project. As such, the location, size, intensity, and general character of the proposed mixed-use building would be compatible with the development in the vicinity. Similarly, the location, size, intensity, and general character of the two residential buildings are consistent with the existing multi-family residential buildings located on the north side of Crespi Drive in the vicinity. The number of residential units proposed on the site meets the density standard specified for the site, which sets the minimum lot area as 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Based on the site area of 72,984 sf (1.68 acres) and the proposed 19 units, the lot area per unit amounts to 3,941 sf per unit.

The Project’s design, but separating inbound and outbound driveways, creates a safer pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern than combined inbound/outbound driveways because vehicles and pedestrians must focus only on a single direction of traffic. This makes transiting the existing pedestrian sidewalk along the Crespi Drive frontage safer for vehicles and pedestrians.

Based on the foregoing, there is evidence to support a conclusion that the Project would not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.

2. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses.

The parking for the Project would be located in covered and uncovered parking areas located away from the traffic along Crespi Drive. All off-street parking spaces would be accessed from driveways interior to the project site. Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses with respect to traffic on the street.

3. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.

A total of 11 percent of the site area would be planted with landscaping, in excess of the 10 percent requirement in PMC section 9-4.1102(d). Only one off-street parking area, that located to the east of Building A, would be directly visible from the public right-of-way. A planter area would be located immediately north of this parking area to provide screening from the street. Other service areas, such as the trash enclosure for the Project located at the north end of Building B, would not be directly visible from the public right-of-way and would be substantially screened from public view by solid gates integrated into the enclosure’s design and by placement of Building A. The Project does not feature large expanses of paving as the paved driveways and off-street parking areas are broken into three segments that limits the aggregate size of paving visible from any single vantage point.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not reserve insufficient landscaped areas for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.

4. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the

11.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 11 appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.

The maximum height of the proposed buildings would not exceed 35’-0”. Development regulations for the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district do not require setbacks; however, the Project does provide 10’-0” front and side setbacks (excluding balcony areas), and a 235’-2” rear setback. Additionally, the minimum distance between buildings internal to the site is 25’-0” which would prevent crowding. The Project also consists of three buildings as opposed to a single, larger building as a result of the proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment, which serves to provide more open area on the site which in turn increases open access to light and air on the project site and other property in the neighborhood. As it relates to the adjacent properties closest to the project site – the property to the east at 580 Crespi Drive does not have any windows on the side of the building facing the project site and would not be impacted by reduced access to light or area; and the property to the west at 540 Crespi Drive is located more than 60 feet away which would prevent the Project from impacting access to light or air based on the 35-foot maximum height of the Project. Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed development would not unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other properties in the neighborhood.

5. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area.

The closest R-zoned district to the commercial building of the proposed Project is the Ocean View Senior Apartments at 555 Crespi Drive. The property at 555 Crespi Drive is located approximately 120 feet northwest of the project site in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district. As demonstrated on the building rendering on Sheet A-0.51 of Attachment C of the staff report, the design of the commercial and residential mixed-use building is high-quality, and uses an aesthetically appealing combination of materials, colors, and architectural design features.

Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the character of the R District area in the vicinity of the site.

6. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Municipal Code.

There are 12 trees identified in the Project plans. The Project proposes to remove six trees or small tree clusters, three of which are heritage trees, to facilitate construction of the proposed Project including pine and Monterey cypress trees. There are six trees that would be maintained: five trees located to the rear of the Project site and another located at the northwestern corner. The three heritage trees include two Monterey cypress trees and one Monterey pine tree which the applicant is requesting approval to remove.

An arborist report was prepared evaluating the condition of the heritage trees. The two Monterey cypress trees were found to be in fair condition and the Monterey pine tree was found to be dead. The arborist that prepared the report recommended removal of the dead Monterey pine tree and indicates that while one Monterey cypress tree is in fair condition it has been heavily pruned in order to accommodate Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) transmission lines and is in close proximity to an adjacent building.

The landscape plan also includes the maintenance of an existing Arroyo Willow grove, a California native tree-like shrub endemic to Pacifica, and would plant 27 additional Arroyo Willows along the western and southern perimeter of the developed area. The landscape plan also includes planting shrubs, vines, and perennials and 13 trees throughout the site.

11.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 12 Given the landscaping plan adds substantive vegetation including 13 new trees and 27 Arroyo Willows, and given that the Project has proposed to remove only those trees essential to development of the Project while preserving more than half the site in an undeveloped condition, the proposed removal of the trees on the site is not excessive for purposes of this finding. The PMC contemplates removal of heritage trees based on the economic viability of the site with the trees removed and the number of healthy trees the parcel can support. As a general matter, only as many trees are being removed as necessary to construct the Project, which results in tree removal which is not excessive.

The Project would include the import of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill. However, given the existing flat topography of the site, and the purpose of the fill being primarily to carry the existing grade at the front (north) of the site to the rear (south), the Project would not damage or destroy natural grade of the site for purposes of this finding.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a finding that the Project would not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Municipal Code.

7. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance.

The proposed Project incorporates several elements in the design of the structure to avoid monotony in external appearance across its three buildings. These elements include varied roof lines and building profile due to the variation in height and levels between the street-facing mixed-use building and the internal residential buildings. The Project also utilizes different exterior materials including stucco, metal, aluminum, and cedar-colored fiber cement board, opaque glass to define balconies, and incorporates a mixture of complementary colors such as bronze, green, cedar, grey, and black which work well to enhance the design of the buildings. The Project includes plantings consisting of shrubs, perennials, and vines to lend interest to the site. Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not include an insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance.

8. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

The City has adopted Design Guidelines which are intended to accomplish the following purposes:
• Ensure at least a minimum standard of design through the application of consistent policies. • Encourage new construction which exceeds minimum standards and discourage construction which falls short of those standards.
• Provide a framework for review and evaluation of design proposals. • Implement applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Plan goals and policies. • Expedite and facilitate the planning permit process.
• Provide direction for design and redesign of projects.

The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. Rather, they address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and the City Council may still find the project consistent with the Design Guidelines. It is up to the Council’s discretion to determine the

11.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 13 appropriate balance and relative priority of the guidelines for a particular project when considering whether a project has achieved Design Guidelines consistency.

In the City Council ’s assessment, as conditioned, the proposed improvements at the site are consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines. Major areas of Project consistency with the Design Guidelines are discussed below:

SITE PLANNING
a. Site Improvements. Locate site improvements such as buildings, parking areas, and walkways to take advantage of desirable site features. For example, existing healthy trees and distinctive berms or rock outcroppings should be incorporated into site design. Buildings should be oriented to capitalize on views of hills and ocean.

Site improvements should be designed to work with site features, not against them. Lot grading should be minimized and disruption of natural features such as trees, ground forms, rocks, and water courses should be avoided.

The site is a 135’-0” wide parcel oriented in a north to south direction adjacent to Crespi Drive one block east of the Highway 1. The City’s General Plan envisions the area opposite of Roberts Road on Crespi Drive to be developed for commercial use and strengthening commercial uses in the area.

The proposed mixed-use development furthers that objective by adding commercial space and additional foot-traffic by way of adding 19 residential dwelling units. The proposed development is laid out to complement the rectangular shape and orientation of the site but seeks to draw focus to the street-facing mixed-use building with most residential units constructed behind the mixed-use building. Additionally, vacant open space land would be retained to the rear of the site.

No distinctive natural features are present on-site except for clusters of Arroyo Willow shrubs, Monterey cypress trees and a Monterey pine tree. The Arroyo Willow shrubs located along the western perimeter and Monterrey cypress and pine trees located to the rear of the site would be maintained and additional Arroyo Willow plantings would reinforce the site’s natural character.
b. Lighting. Exterior lighting should be subdued, and should enhance building design as well as provide for safety and security. Lighting which creates glare for occupants or neighbors should not be used. In general, large areas should be illuminated with a few low shielded fixtures. Tall fixtures which illuminate large areas should be avoided.

The proposed development would include exterior lighting for pedestrian areas and five lights on 18-foot poles for vehicles. The lighting fixtures proposed downlights, as shown on Sheet A-1.18 of the Project Plans (Attachment C of the staff report). As such, the proposed lighting would not create glare for occupants and neighbors. The Planning Director will review any revisions to the lighting plans, in the event the applicant proposes additional exterior lighting during the building permit stage.
c. Parking. The visual impact of parking areas should be minimized when appropriate to the site by locating parking areas to the rear or side of the property, rather than along street

11.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 14 frontages. Ample landscaping should be used to help screen parking areas from both exterior and interior views.

The Project would provide on-site parking for the townhouse units in grade level garages and additional uncovered parking for townhouses, commercial use, and one-bedroom flats. The parking areas are located primarily on the interior of the project site and the majority of parking areas will not be visible from the street. Additionally, the area will be landscaped to provide visual breaks between asphalt and building structures, and to screen parking areas.

BUILDING DESIGN
d. Design. The style and design of new buildings should be in character with that of the surrounding neighborhood. This does not mean that new buildings should be identical to existing buildings on neighboring lots, but that new buildings should complement, enhance, and reinforce the positive characteristics of surrounding development. This can be accomplished by incorporating the dominant architectural features of an area into the design of new development. Such features may include bay windows, chimneys, balconies, porches, roof shapes, and other architectural details and materials.

The Crespi Drive area was developed over different periods and includes various architectural styles. Buildings along this street range from one- to three-stories and include Victorian revival, traditional, and contemporary architecture. There are community facilities, commercial structures, and residential structures.

The proposed buildings will be located at the southwest section of the Crespi Drive-Roberts Road intersection. They will be flanked by a one-story stucco commercial structure to the east and the Pacifica Community Center, with concrete as the primary exterior material, to the west. Immediately across Crespi Drive, there are three-story multi-family residential and single-story commercial wood-paneled structures. To the rear of the project site are a mix of one- and two-story single-family residences. Most structures in the immediate area employ flat roofs, with one pitched-roof structure at the corner of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road.

The proposed building is contemporary in its style and consists of one two-story pitched roof building abutting Crespi Drive. Similar to other commercial structures on Crespi Drive, the commercial ground floor would have large windows and glass doors. The internal residential buildings have roof top decks with half pitched roofs above the third story. The buildings feature a mixture of stucco, metal, aluminum, and cedar-colored fiber cement board siding exteriors. Overall, the proposed building would complement, enhance, and reinforce the positive characteristics of surrounding buildings. e. Scale. An important aspect of design compatibility is scale. Scale is the measure of the relationship of the relative overall size of one structure with one or more other structures.

Scale is also used to refer to a group of buildings, a neighborhood, or an entire city. A development can be “out of scale” with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density.

A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwellings, which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged. The City’s height limitation is a maximum only, and the maximum height may often be inappropriate when

11.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 15 considered in the context of surrounding development and topography. The “carrying capacity” of a given site is also an important factor in determining appropriate scale and lot coverage. As with the height limitation, the City’s lot coverage limitation is a maximum only.

The proposed development is in a neighborhood that includes one- to three-story structures.

The developments immediately adjacent to the north are one- or two-stories. The developments to the east and west are single story, while to the south of the site are one- or two-stories. The proposed building is two stories along Crespi Drive and to the interior of the site the buildings increase to three stories. The proposed interior residential buildings include a third-story deck on the west side that scales down the building on this side and is adjacent to the proposed two-story structure facing Crespi Drive. This feature of the building’s design helps reduces the scale of the overall development for compatibility with the scale of the surrounding buildings.
f. Details. Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale. Wall insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the scale of larger buildings.

The proposed building includes several architectural features and details that further help create a sense of human scale. These features and details include a distinct base, balconies, and various sized windows to break up the massing, and different colors, materials, and textures providing articulation.
g. Materials. Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. In areas with either historic or architecturally significant structures, the use of similar exterior construction materials should be used in new construction in order to maintain neighborhood character. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

The proposed material palette draws upon the surrounding neighborhood. The street-facing façade is characterized by large glass windows and doors articulated with metal glazing, corrugated metal sidings, and aluminum columns on the first floor, and balconies accentuated with metal siding and opaque glass contrasted with stucco and wood wall siding and a standing seam metal roof. The interior residential buildings include slate greycolored and cedar-colored fiber cement boards, and stucco for siding with standing seam metal roofs. The materials bring variety to the appearance of the building, and do not appear incongruous with surrounding buildings. Individual buildings along Crespi Drive utilize concrete, stucco, and cedar-colored fiber cement board sidings. The proposed Project takes these materials and incorporates them in a cohesive way. h. Color. Building color should be compatible with the neighborhood and should reinforce and complement the visual character of the building’s environment. Multiple colors applied to a single building should relate to changes of material or form.

As shown on Sheets A-3.5, A-3.6, A-4.3, and A-4.4 of the Project Plans (Attachment C of the staff report), the proposed color palette consists predominately of three neutral colors:
grey, brown, and white consistent with the color schemes of buildings immediately nearby.

Darker greys are used as an accent and provide contrast and are used through the standing seam metal roof, corrugated metal siding, columns, metal balconies, and window glazing.

11.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 16 i. Privacy. Consideration should be given to the impact of development on the privacy of surrounding properties. Use judicious windows placement and appropriate landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of privacy.

The building to the east does not contain any windows that face the project site. To the west, the Pacifica Community Center has limited windows that would face the residential buildings. There is a 235’-2” rear setback from adjacent property lines providing sufficient distance and privacy to the single-family residences along Anza Drive. The project site is also across Crespi Drive and is downhill from residential buildings to the north which contributes to maintaining the privacy of these buildings. The nearest distance between the proposed Project and a residential building on the north side of Crespi Drive is approximately the property at 555 Crespi Drive, located approximately 120 feet northwest of the project site in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district. As a result, privacy of the surrounding properties would not be impacted because of the proposed building.
j. Consistency. There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations. All elevations need not be identical, but a sense of overall design continuity must occur.

Window treatment and trim, for example, should be carried out around the entire building, not just on the most visible sides.

The proposed buildings are architecturally consistent on all four elevations. The number of openings and size of windows on the different façades of the buildings vary but are consistent across the buildings. Additionally, the applicant has carried the same materials, trim, architectural detailing, and similar shapes of window openings on all sides of the proposed buildings.

LANDSCAPING
k. Purpose. Landscaping should not be used to screen or hide an otherwise unacceptable building. Building architecture should stand on its own, with landscaping incorporated as an integral element of overall project design.

The building architecture is visually pleasing and can stand on its own. The landscaping and plant selection complements the architecture and neutral building color palette.

Building A adjacent to Crespi Drive includes living walls on the south, east, and west façades. The proposed development includes native bioswale grass along much of the perimeter of the site. To the west of the site, between the proposed development and the Pacifica Community Center, there is a mixture of shrubs, perennials, and native grasses.

Shrubs and perennials are used in planters to help provide visual breaks to the asphalt and pedestrian walkways. The Project would add 13 trees situated throughout the site to complement pedestrian and vehicle circulation.
l. Amount and variety. Applicants are encouraged to exceed the minimum amount of landscaping required by the zoning ordinance and landscaping plans should incorporate a variety of plant species. The amount, scale, and nature of landscape materials should be appropriate to the site and/or structure. Large-scale buildings should be complemented by large-scale landscaping. Development along major streets should also include large scale trees.

11.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 17 The Project proposes approximately 7,953 sf of area in landscaping, which constitutes 11 percent of the site area and exceeds the minimum required 10 percent of project site in landscaping. The proposed planting palette includes 19 different perennial, shrub, grass, groundcover, tree and vine and vine species many of which are native to the area or California. For example, Arroyo Willow is a dominant plant species existing on-site which is native to California. The proposed Project draws upon this natural condition and plants 27 additional Arroyo Willows throughout the site. The proposed Project would also add a Crape Myrtle tree onsite adjacent to Crespi Drive. Crape Myrtle trees typically grow to 15- 25 feet in height.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not be inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.

9. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

The proposed mixed-use (commercial/residential) development, as conditioned, would be consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City. General Plan consistency includes, but is not limited to, the following policies:

GENERAL PLAN
Circulation Element.
• Policy No. 4: Provide safe and consistent access for the development.

Access to the site would be provided through two driveways along Crespi Drive. The first driveway, nearest to Highway 1, would take advantage of an existing driveway, would not create an additional curb cut, would be shared with the Pacifica Community Center and is 30’-0” wide. This driveway will serve as an exit driveway for the Project and benefit from the existing line-of-sight. The second driveway, nearest Roberts Road, is 20’-0” wide but will be only an entry way for the Project.

Since this second driveway is near the Crespi Drive-Roberts Road intersection, this would limit conflicts at the intersection from vehicles leaving the project site. The City’s Engineering Division staff has reviewed the development proposal to ensure the new development would be constructed in a safe manner. • Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation.

The Project does not seek to accomplish the maximum development potential of the site. Though the Project provides 11 percent landscaped area, 46 percent of the project site would remain undeveloped in a natural state. Additionally, the proposed residential development would exceed the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,000 sf; the proposed Project provides 3,841 sf in lot area per dwelling unit. The 3,165 square feet of commercial use is also modest. The modest size of the Project, combined with its infill between existing developed properties in an established neighborhood, would promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation.

Conservation Element.

11.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 18 • Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

The landscaping plan for the Project would maintain six of the twelve existing trees and a significant Arroyo Willow grove, a California native tree-like shrub endemic to Pacifica. The proposed Project would also plant an additional 27 Arroyo Willows along the western and southern perimeter of the developed area and would add 13 additional trees. The tree preservation and planting of the Project would conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

Community Design Element.
• Policy No. 1: Encourage the upgrading and maintenance of existing neighborhoods.

The Project would improve the Crespi Drive area through the proposed commercial space which would be of interest to visitors and community members. The Project would also construct 16 townhouses and 3 one-bedroom flats, creating additional housing opportunities and foot traffic for nearby commercial uses. The off-site improvements proposed at the Pacifica Community Center including the new off-street parking, new drop-off area, and new landscaping, would also contribute to the other Project elements and upgrade and maintain the existing neighborhood.

Community Facilities Element.
• Policy No. 2: Maintain and improve the present level of City services.

Through a development agreement with the City of Pacifica, the Project would enhance accessibility to the Pacifica Community Center by constructing a new passenger dropoff point by the Center’s front door and add 17 new off-street parking spaces.

Additionally, the proposed Project would add new landscaping for the Community Center improving the exterior appearance.

Housing Element
• Policy No. 4.D.i: Prioritize in-fill residential development.

Policy No. 8.A: Prioritize mixed-use residential development on in-fill sites.

The proposed Project would be an infill development to add 19 total units to an undeveloped lot situated among other developed properties along Crespi Drive. The proposed Project would include 16 townhouses and three one-bedroom flats.

Land Use Element
• Policy No. 8: Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.

The proposed mixed-use (commercial/residential) development is consistent with the commercial and residential uses in this section of Crespi Drive. The nearby land-uses consist of a mixture of residential, commercial and public facility developments including a mixed-use development across the street from the project site and a 100- unit senior housing apartment complex between two commercial developments.

11.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 19 OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE CITY
The Project would also be consistent with other applicable laws of the City, including the following:
a. Below Market Rate Program.

Pursuant to PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47, it is the intent of the City to provide housing units for very low, lower, and moderate income households in residential development projects with eight or more units. No less than 15 percent of all units shall be BMR units.

The proposed Project would provide 19 total residential units and would be required to provide no less than three BMR units. The proposed Project would meet this requirement by making two of the townhouses and one of the one-bedroom flats BMR units. The Project would also make a $272,000 affordable housing contribution to support other affordable housing efforts of the City.
b. C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning Standards.

The proposed development would be located in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district if the rezoning is approved. The Project would be consistent with the applicable C2 zoning regulations pertaining to use (upon approval of a use permit), height, minimum building site, landscaping, and setbacks as demonstrated in Table 1 of the staff report. The only zoning standards the Project would not achieve are related to covered parking but the City Council has approved a parking exception to address compliance with PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 28. Importantly, upon a rezoning to C-2, the Project would comply with the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard of 2,000 sf per dwelling unit found in PMC section 9-4.1101(b)(8) (by reference to PMC section 9-4.1001(b)(11)) by providing 3,841 sf per dwelling unit.
c. Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards.

The proposed development would be subject to the Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2402. The Project would be consistent with the applicable development standards in providing usable and private open space, separation from structures, side setbacks of residential standards, trash storage area, and laundry facilities.

Based on the above discussion the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City, and the City Council does not believe that there is evidence to make this finding.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-4.2403(c) for approval of a Site Development Permit for a residential clustered housing development:

1. For projects in low density areas, that the privacy of nearby residences will not be reduced to an extent which exceeds that which would normally be reduced by conventional single-family dwellings.

The project site is located in an area designated as “Commercial” in the General Plan and is not a “low density” area for purposes of this finding. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

11.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 20 2. That the architectural features of proposed structures will be integrated harmoniously into the design character of the immediate neighborhood.

As described in further detail above, as conditioned, the Project would be consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines and would be integrated harmoniously into the design character of the immediate neighborhood. In particular, the Project would be consistent with guidelines related to Site Planning and Building Design.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-2.3303(a) pertaining to Use Permit UP-76-16:

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

The proposed Project is a mixed-use development including 3,165 square feet of commercial space, 19 residential units, and off-street parking, circulation, and landscape improvements to the adjacent Pacifica Community Center at 540 Crespi Drive. The residential use of the subject site, which is a conditional use in the proposed C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, would serve to reinforce the commercial areas of Roberts Road as called for in the General Plan neighborhood narrative for the project area by increasing the number of potential customers living in the proposed residential units. The below-market rate (BMR) housing units and additional $272,000 affordable housing contribution would provide much-needed affordable housing that would be beneficial to the broader Pacifica community.

The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would allow the Project’s building mass to be split into multiple buildings, instead of one large building under the current regulations. The three proposed buildings of the Project would result in massing that is consistent with that of the varied uses in the project vicinity including the multi-family residential projects located on the north side of Crespi Drive. While the project site is adjacent to an R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) zoned area to the south, the developed portion of the site would be located approximately 235’-2” from the property lines of the R-1 zoned areas. This significant distance from single-family residences would serve to provide a sufficient buffer from the Project to those areas, and would ensure no adverse impacts result to the residential area. Moreover, the Project components most closely located to the R-1 zoned area to the south are themselves residential uses in Buildings B and C. The commercial component of the Project would be an additional approximately 220 feet from the R-1 zoned area which would provide further buffer and minimization of any potentially adverse impacts to the residential area.

The existing commercial building at 580 Crespi Drive to the east of the project site is located much closer, however. The proposed setback from Building C to the 580 Crespi Drive building would be approximately 10 feet to the Building C wall and 4’-4” to the proposed balconies. Therefore, significant construction activities to build the nine residential units in Building C would occur within close proximity to 580 Crespi Drive. The noise analysis performed for purposes of CEQA review identified potentially high levels of noise of as much as 79 dB(A) transmitting across the property line to 580 Crespi Drive which would have the potential to be disruptive or disturbing to tenants of the commercial building on that site (Attachment I of the staff report, Appendix D, Figure 3). Although the noise generated by the proposed Project would not be considered significant for the purposes of CEQA, the noise levels do warrant further consideration as part of the findings for this use permit.

11.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 21 The City requested that the noise subconsultant of the City’s CEQA consultant prepare a memorandum describing potential noise reduction measures that could be implemented during the construction phase of the Project (Attachment J of the staff report). The noise analysis identified an interior noise level of 50 dB(A) which is the identified maximum noise level for new commercial buildings pursuant to the California Green Building Code. The analysis estimated a reduction of 27 dB(A) based on the materials of the existing building, resulting in a required additional noise reduction of 2 dB(A). The noise analysis recommended installation of a 10‐foot‐tall temporary sound wall on the project site along the 580 Crespi Drive building façade. The sound wall would consist of stacked hay bales, ¾” plywood, or acoustical curtains with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 22. This would be expected to reduce construction noise within 580 Crespi down to 39 dBA Leq for regular construction activities and should substantially reduce the potential for disturbance to these uses during the Project construction. The City Council has included a condition of approval to require the sound wall installation prior to commencement of construction activities.

With the aforementioned condition of approval addressing construction noise and other conditions of approval, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed Project will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

2. That the use or building applied for is consistent with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City and, where applicable, the local Coastal Plan.

In terms of the General Plan, the proposed Project would be consistent with the definition for Commercial which includes mixed residential and commercial uses. Additionally, the Project is consistent with General Plan policies Circulation Elements 4, 14, and 15; Conservation Element 1; Community Design Element 2; Community Facilities Element 2; Land Use Element 8; and Housing Elements 4.D.i and 8.A.

The Project site is not located in the coastal zone, therefore, the Local Coastal Plan is not applicable to this Project.

3. Where applicable, that the use or building applied for is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

As described in further detail above, as conditioned, the Project would be consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines. In particular, the Project would be consistent with guidelines related to Site Planning and Building Design.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-4.2403(c) for approval of a Use Permit for a residential clustered housing development:

1. For projects in low density areas, that the privacy of nearby residences will not be reduced to an extent which exceeds that which would normally be reduced by conventional single-family dwellings.

The above, identical finding in the discussion for approval of a site development permit is hereby incorporated by reference.

11.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 22 2. That the architectural features of proposed structures will be integrated harmoniously into the design character of the immediate neighborhood.

The above, identical finding in the discussion for approval of a site development permit is hereby incorporated by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following finding required by PMC section 9-2824(a) pertaining to Parking Exception PE-183-19 due to practical difficulties and unusual hardship:

1. That the establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in this article as are reasonably possible.

Pursuant to the off-street parking standards in PMC section 9-4.2818, the proposed Project would require 52 off-street parking spaces. This aggregate figure is comprised of parking for the commercial and residential components of the Project. The commercial component of the Project, intended for general retail uses, would require 11 uncovered spaces. The residential component of the Project would require 19 covered parking spaces (carport or garage), 18 uncovered parking spaces, and 4 uncovered guest parking spaces. The Project proposes 47 total off-street parking spaces, comprised of 32 covered parking spaces (two garage spaces per townhouse unit in a tandem configuration) and 15 uncovered spaces. The applicant has not proposed to designate the uncovered spaces for any specific Project component. However, at least three of the uncovered spaces at the rear of the project site would be likely to function as dedicated spaces for the residential component of the Project because of its distance from the commercial area in Building A.

The Project overall proposes five fewer off-street parking spaces than required by the PMC. However, the PMC’s off-street parking requirements involve more than number of spaces and include other criteria applicable to off-street parking areas. The Project fulfills some but not all of these off-street parking criteria for the various Project components. As noted above, the applicant has not designated the uncovered parking spaces for any Project component. For simplicity of analysis, the City Council has started by assigning spaces to residential components of the Project.

The Project would meet the off-street parking requirement for the two-bedroom townhome units in terms of number of spaces by providing two garage spaces per unit. Except, however, that PMC section 9-

4.2813(a) requires that all off-street parking spaces, except those for accessory dwelling units, shall be nontandem. The Project would meet the off-street parking requirement for the one-bedroom “flat” units in terms of number of spaces (five spaces) but not in terms of at least one covered parking space per unit in PMC section 9-4.2818(a)(2). The Project would meet the guest parking requirements in terms of number of spaces. Lastly, the Project would not meet the requirement for 11 off-street parking spaces for the commercial component of the Project and instead would provide only 6 spaces.

Based on the foregoing, the Project would require a parking exception from the following standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 28:
• Non-tandem parking spaces pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2813(a); • One covered parking space per unit pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2818(a)(2); and • Number of off-street parking spaces for commercial retail uses pursuant to PMC section 9-

4.2818(b)(2).

11.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 23 The primary constraint to provision of off-street parking facilities on the subject site is suitable development area. The applicant has designed the Project to protect the biological resources that exist roughly in the southern half of the project site, as further discussed in the CEQA analysis prepared for the Project (Attachment I of the staff report). As noted in the analysis of the Project in the staff report, the applicant has proposed commercial and residential development less than the maximums that could be permitted pursuant to General Plan and zoning regulations. Therefore, the Project as proposed is modest in scale relative to allowable maximums and faces a practical difficulty and unusual hardship from its attempts to leave the southern half of the project site undisturbed by development.

The applicant has provided off-street parking where feasible on the project site while balancing the need for landscaping, zoning-compliant drive aisles, and other mandatory requirements for the Project. The tandem parking configuration within the garages of the two-bedroom townhouse units is a reasonable alternative to the standards side-by-side garage requirement. Providing side-by-side garages would require nearly twice the width for the proposed Buildings B and C which would cause the Project to encroach into the southern half of the site. Alternatively, the Project could reduce the proposed number of units by approximately half to account for the additional area needed for side-by-side garages. Yet providing fewer housing units would not support the goals of the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan and would not contribute to orderly, in-fill development as supported by other General Plan policies as indicated in the staff report.

The constrained development area of the project site generally limits potential locations for uncovered parking spaces. The applicant has identified uncovered parking locations in all practicable locations on the site while also complying with site development permit findings and Design Guidelines that urge off-street parking to be located where less visible from the street. To increase ease of use and to encourage commercial customers to use the off-street parking spaces closest to Building A during business hours, the applicant has proposed not to construct three carports for the “flat” units in Building A. Carports would suggest to retail customers that the spaces may be reserved for residential use, which would limit utilization of these spaces. Ensuring consistency of these spaces as uncovered spaces throughout the 12 spaces adjacent to Building A will also enhance consistency in the architectural appearance of the spaces surrounding Building A.

Finally, the aforementioned site constraints and site planning challenges on the project site compound to provide specific challenges to providing the total number of off-street parking spaces required for the commercial component of the Project. Providing the required number of off-street parking spaces would most likely require encroaching into the southern half of the site, which contains important biological resources, or else reducing the number of residential units proposed with the Project, which would run at cross-purposes with General Plan policies to encourage in-fill and affordable housing development.

For the foregoing reasons, there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the applicant faces a practical difficulty and unusual hardship that prevents full compliance with the off-street parking standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 28, and that the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the standards as is reasonably possible.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-4.2906(b) pertaining to Sign Permit S-129-19:

1. A freestanding sign is necessary for the business or businesses located on the premises to achieve a reasonable degree of identification.

The proposed Project is located along a substantially developed segment of Crespi Drive. The properties adjacent to the project site at 540 Crespi Drive and 580 Crespi Drive both have freestanding signs to identify

11.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 24 those developments. A freestanding sign is necessary to distinguish the project site from these adjacent properties on this basis. Additionally, with much of the Project located behind Building A at the rear of the project site, a freestanding sign that identifies the name of the development would provide a ready means for businesses and residents to direct visitors to the project site with a simple point of reference to the freestanding sign.

2. The sign is consistent with the intent and provisions of this article.

PMC section 9-4.2901 states that the purpose of the City’s sign regulations is as follows:

The purpose of this article is to permit such signs that will not, by their reason, size, location, construction, or manner of display, endanger the public safety, confuse, mislead, or obstruct the vision necessary for traffic safety, or otherwise endanger the public health, safety, and welfare; and to permit and regulate signs in such a way as to support and complement the land use objectives set forth in the General Plan and the other sections of this chapter to assist in the continuation of existing, and the introduction of new, commercial activities in architectural harmony with the existing and planned City, to provide that signs be tailored to individual businesses, and to encourage excellence in design which will provide signing compatible with the atmosphere of the City which attracts both residents and visitors.

The proposed freestanding sign would be consistent with the intent of PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 29.

The Project proposes one freestanding sign located at the front edge of the project site and would not result in sign clutter. The well-designed sign and high-quality materials would not lead to confusion, misleading impressions, obstruction of vision necessary for traffic safety, or otherwise endanger the public safety and welfare. Installation of a freestanding sign, as noted in the preceding finding, would complement efficient operation of the proposed Project by improving convenient identification of the Project in a manner that would enhance the new commercial activities on the site. Therefore, the proposed freestanding sign would be consistent with the intent of PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 29. Upon obtaining approval of a sign permit, the proposed freestanding sign would also comply with the provisions of same.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed freestanding sign is consistent with the intent and provisions of PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 29.

3. The sign does not exceed the square footage set forth in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3).

The maximum square footage for a freestanding sign in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3) is 0.75 sf of sign area per linear foot of site frontage. The project site’s frontage is 135 feet, yielding a maximum sign area of 101.25 sf.

The freestanding sign as proposed would have a sign area of 4’-8” tall by 12’-0” wide for a total of 56 sf.

As a single-sided freestanding sign, as proposed, the freestanding sign would comply with the sign area limits in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3). In the event the applicant should propose to make the sign two-sided at any point, the sign area would be 112 sf, in excess of the maximum sign area in PMC section 9-

4.2906(a)(3). In such instance, the sign area would need to be reduced to not more than 56 sf per side. The City Council has included a condition of approval to establish this sign area limitation in the event the sign is ever revised to be a two-sided sign.

Based on the foregoing, as conditioned, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed freestanding sign would not exceed the maximum square footage set forth in PMC section 9-

4.2906(a)(3).

11.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 25 4. The sign does not exceed a height of twenty (20′) feet above the sidewalk or paved area over which it is erected.

The freestanding sign, as proposed, would have a height of 7’-4” tall. Therefore, the proposed freestanding sign would not exceed a height of 20 feet above the sidewalk or paved area over which it would be erected.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following finding required by PMC 10-1.407(c) pertaining to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16:

1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, any Specific Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the zoning provisions.

The discussion of General Plan consistency and zoning provisions compliance contained in the findings for approval of a site development permit, above, are hereby incorporated by reference. These findings include, but are not limited to, Circulation Element Policies No. 4 and 15; Conservation Element Policy No. 1; Community Design Element Policy No. 1; Community Facilities Element Policy No. 2; Housing Element Policies No. 4.D.i and 8.A; and Land Use Element Policy No. 8; the Below Market Rate inclusionary zoning requirements in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47; and, C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning Standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 11.

Because the Project is primarily a condominium subdivision of airspace, many of the subdivision standards in PMC Title 10, Chapter 1 that are designed for subdivisions of land are not applicable to the proposed subdivision. However, the proposed subdivision would meet the lot design standards required by Table 4 of PMC section 10-1.912(c); and, PMC section 10-1.909 related to the preservation of existing vegetation by preserving the southern half of the project site. The proposed subdivision would also comply with the specific requirements applicable to a vesting tentative subdivision map in PMC section 10-1.706. These include, but are not limited to a conspicuous printing on its face the words “vesting tentative map”; and, a concurrent application for all other required discretionary Project approvals which include a site development permit, use permit, parking exception, sign permit, heritage tree removal authorization, General Plan amendment, rezoning, and zoning text amendment.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed vesting tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, any Specific Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the zoning provisions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby authorizes removal of three heritage trees based on the following criteria as required by PMC Section 4-12.05(c):

1. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, and its ability to host a plant which is parasitic to another tree which is in danger of being infested by the parasite;

2. Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property;

3. The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it;

4. The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic

11.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 26 beauty and upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole;

5. The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support; and

6. Good forestry practices.

The applicant has submitted an arborist report that assess the condition of the three heritage trees on the project site (Attachment F of the staff report). The arborist report determined two of the trees to be in fair condition and one tree as dead, with additional information provided in Table 4 of the staff report. The Project proposes to remove all three heritage trees.

Tree #2 is justified for removal based on Criterion No. 1 because the tree is dead. Trees #1 and #3 are in fair condition but both are justified for removal under Criterions No. 1 and No. 2. The trees are located in proximity to proposed structures (#1) and existing utility lines (#3). They are also located at the front and/or center of the project site and must be removed to enable economically viable use of the property. Due to the constraints on the project site discussed in the findings for approval of a parking exception, hereby incorporated by reference, development must be clustered in the front half of the project site in order to preserve existing resources in the rear half of the project site.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that heritage tree removal is justified based on the criteria in PMC section 4-12.05(c).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby finds as required by Government Code Section 65402 that the transfer of a portion of the City-owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) would be consistent with the General Plan, as follows:

1. The project site, without a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive, would be approximately 80 feet wide. The City-owned parcel to be purchased by the applicant would add another 55 feet to the width of the project site, for a total of approximately 135 feet in width. As noted in the discussion of the finding for approval of a parking exception, hereby incorporated by reference, the project site faces practical constraints to development related primarily to the desire to preserve existing biological resources on the rear (southern) half of the project site. Therefore, acquisition of the City-owned parcel is necessary to enable the Project in its current configuration.

2. The Project, as proposed, would be consistent with several policies in the General Plan as noted in the discussion of findings for approval of a site development permit, hereby incorporated by reference. The City’s sale of the parcel in question, by expanding the developable area of the project site in locations with fewer sensitive biological resources, would specifically advance General Plan policies with broader City benefit, including but not limited to the following:

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
• Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation.

By sale of a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive, the applicant would be able to construct an appropriate in-fill development Project on the project site in a manner that would preserve biological resources on the southern half of the project site.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

11.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 27 • Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

As discussed in the immediately preceding General Plan policy, the sale of a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive would enable the applicant to construct an appropriate in-fill development Project on the project site in a manner that would preserve biological resources including but not limited to native Arroyo Willow trees on the southern half of the project site.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT
• Policy No. 2: Maintain and improve the present level of City services.

The sale of the City-owned parcel, as an integral component of the development agreement negotiations, would result in a public benefit to the City in the form of enhanced accessibility to the Pacifica Community Center from construction of a new passenger drop-off point by the Center’s front door and the addition of 17 new off-street parking spaces. Additionally, the development agreement would add new landscaping for the Community Center improving the exterior appearance.

HOUSING ELEMENT
• Policy No. 4.D.i: Prioritize in-fill residential development.

Policy No. 8.A: Prioritize mixed-use residential development on in-fill sites.

By sale of a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive, the applicant would be able to construct an appropriate in-fill mixed-use commercial and residential development Project on the project site in a manner that would preserve biological resources on the southern half of the project site.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a finding that transfer of the City-owned parcel would be consistent with the General Plan, including not limited to policies in the Circulation, Conservation, Community Facilities, and Housing Elements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183- 19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization (“Development Permits”) as revised in Attachment I to the Staff Report to relocate , subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this Resolution and the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council’s approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19 shall take immediate effect upon adoption of this Resolution. However, as set forth in the conditions of approval in Exhibit A to this Resolution, the Development Permits shall have no force or effect until, and their terms of approval shall begin on, the effective date of an ordinance to approve Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-

21. * * * * *

11.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th day of June, 2022.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

11.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of

EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004 – Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 3,165 square feet (sf) of ground floor commercial space in Building A, three one-bedroom residential units in Building A, seven two-bedroom townhouses in Building B, and nine two-bedroom town houses in Building C on a 72,984 sf undeveloped lot at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “540 & 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044” dated April 27, 2021, and the revised Sheets TM-0, TM-3, A-0.0, A-1.14, and A-1.20 approved by the City Council on June 27, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. The Applicant shall incorporate all mitigation measures as detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Exhibit B to this Resolution.

3. The date of final determination on Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB233-16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization (the “Development Permits”) shall be the effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21, Rezoning RZ-194-16, and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116- 19 (collectively the “Legislative Approvals”). The Development Permits shall have no force or effect until, and their terms of approval shall begin on, the effective date of any such ordinance.

4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, or removal of any heritage tree, the Applicant shall obtain title to the entire Project site including the portion of the 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) parcel that was owned by the City of Pacifica at the time of approval of the Development Permits.

5. Except as otherwise provided in Development Agreement DA-4-21, consistent with section 65863.9 of the Government Code regulating expiration dates of local agency permits issued in conjunction with a vesting tentative subdivision map, and consistent with section 10-1.411 of the Pacifica Municipal Code governing expiration of vesting tentative subdivision maps for five or more parcels, the vesting tentative subdivision map and related development permits are valid for a period of 24 months from the date of final determination. If the final subdivision map is not recorded within such period of time, the approvals shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the vesting tentative map in the manner required by section 10-1.412 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

Any extension of the term of the vesting tentative map shall be deemed also to extend the term of the related development permits.

6. Except as otherwise provided in Development Agreement DA-4-21, the development permits approved in conjunction with the vesting tentative subdivision map shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of recordation of the final subdivision map. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval(s) shall expire unless Applicant

11.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-2
submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Planning Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below.

The Planning Director may administratively grant a single, one year extension provided, in the Planning Director’s sole discretion, the circumstances considered during the initial Project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one year extension.

In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the vesting tentative subdivision map or development permits, the expiration of the vesting tentative subdivision map and related development permits may be tolled during the pendency of such litigation as provided in state law, including but not limited to section 66452.6(c) of the Government Code.

7. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

8. The approval letter issued by the City, all conditions of approval attached thereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit or grading permit application.

9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any commercial or residential unit on the site, Applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a master sign program (MSP) from the Planning Director which master sign program shall include all signage proposed on the Project site. The MSP shall include all types of signs to be installed on the Project site, including but not limited to the freestanding sign, individual commercial tenant signs, address and unit numbering.

11. Exterior lighting shall include buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise its Project to include no less than two bicycle parking spaces onsite designed to comply with the standards contained in PMC section 9-4.2822, and further subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director.

11.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-3

13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall ensure the Project complies with all requirements of the Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards contained in Article 24 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, including but not limited to, the following:

A. The interior layout of each garage in Building B and Building C shall be modified to provide a storage with a minimum interior dimension of 3’-6” by 6’-0”; and B. Building A shall be modified to provide an enclosed, weatherproofed and lockable private storage space of at least 200 cubic feet for each of the three one-bedroom units.

14. All trash and recycling materials, if stored outdoors, shall be fully contained, and screened from public view within an approved enclosure. The enclosure design shall be consistent with the adjacent and/or surrounding building materials, and shall be sufficient in size to contain all trash and recycling materials, as may be recommended by Recology of the Coast. Trash enclosure and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide construction details for the enclosure for review and approval by the Planning Director.

15. All transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berming, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall demonstrate that the two lots on the Project site have been merged into a single lot to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

17. All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashing, and conduits shall be painted to match the colors of adjacent building surfaces. In addition, any mechanical or other equipment such as HVAC attached to or protruding from the building shall be appropriately housed and/or screened to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

18. Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size, and location of plant materials, as well as the irrigation system. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native, and shall include an appropriate mix of plantings including. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.

20. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the Project, the Applicant shall prepare and record with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Equitable Servitudes which shall run with the land and be binding on all future owners and occupants of each of the residential units within the subject property and their successors, heirs, and assigns, and shall be approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and Planning

11.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-4
Director, which accomplishes the following:

A. The Declaration shall be binding upon each of the owners of each of the residential units on the subject property and their heirs, successors and assigns.

B. There shall be an Owners Association to manage the Project. The Declaration shall specify that the Owners Association shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of exterior lighting, parks, common areas, utility areas within common areas, parking, landscaping, building signage, sanitary sewer, stormwater facilities, open space, and other features of the Project.

C. The Declaration shall establish standards and guidelines for the maintenance, repair and replacement, where applicable, exterior lighting, park, parking, landscaping, signage, sanitary sewer, stormwater facilities, and other features and utility facilities within the common areas, to the satisfaction of the City of Pacifica. Maintenance of the stormwater facilities located within the property shall be the responsibility of the applicant and property owners.

D. The Declaration shall establish a mechanism for placing assessments against the owners of all condominium units within the subject property for the purpose of financing the maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas, parking, landscaping and building signage. The assessments shall be apportioned in an equitable manner.

E. The assessments shall be made, work shall be contracted for, and funds shall be disbursed by such person (“Agent”) as may be delegated from time to time, by the Owners Association. The applicant or his/her successor in interest shall act as the Agent as long as he/she owns at least two of the units on the subject property.

F. Any assessment not paid when due shall become a lien against the unit of the nonpaying owner, which lien may be foreclosed by the Agent.

G. Communication. Each owner is responsible for, and shall agree to, furnish to each new tenant a copy of the CC&Rs prior to execution of the lease or purchase agreement for each unit.

H. The Declaration shall include procedures for designating a Project “Manager” if different than the “Agent” who shall at all times be responsible for security and/or maintenance of the overall Project. At all times the Manager shall provide his/her name and current phone number to the Planning Director, including any changes thereto.

I. The Declaration shall include a provision that the provisions relating to this condition shall not be amended without prior approval in writing from the City of Pacifica.

J. The Declaration shall specify that the owners of each of the condominium units on the property shall comply with all other applicable conditions of approval for the Project.

K. The Declaration shall specify that in no way shall the appearance of any building or premises be so altered, or the conduct of the occupancy within the building or premises be such that the residential units may be reasonably recognized as serving other than a purely residential use by virtue of color, materials, construction, lighting, noise, vibration, or the like, without prior written approval of the Planning Director.

L. The Declaration shall include the provisions required to be included in the CC&Rs by the MMRP. The MMRP requires provisions to be included in the CC&Rs whenever a mitigation measure requires the owners, Owners Association or other similar entity to undertake maintenance or other obligations after occupancy of the Project.

M. The Declaration shall name the City of Pacifica as a third-party beneficiary with the right (but not the obligation) to enforce the provisions required to be included in the CC&Rs by the MMRP or these conditions of approval.

11.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-5

21. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, Applicant shall enter into a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Unit Affordability Agreement (“Affordability Agreement”) with City, in a form approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney. The Affordability Agreement shall provide, among other things that: (1) Applicant will develop and sell three of its units as BMR units at an affordable housing cost to eligible households; (2) the BMR units shall meet the size and design requirements set forth in Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.4705; (3) construction and sale of the BMR units shall be phased with the development of the market rate units to ensure that the BMR units are timely developed and sold; (4) purchasers of the BMR units will be required to enter into and execute Resale Restriction Agreements and other documents ensuring the long-term affordability of the BMR units for no less than 45 years; (5) the development and sale of the BMR units otherwise meets the requirements of Article 47 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program”) and the terms of the Development Agreement; and (6) Applicant will be responsible for the City’s administrative costs associated with compliance with the Affordability Agreement. The Affordability Agreement must be recorded against the property prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the Final Map.

22. Prior to commencement of any grading, building, or other construction activity, the Applicant shall install a 10‐foot‐tall temporary sound wall on the Project site along the 580 Crespi Drive building façade. The sound wall would consist of stacked hay bales, ¾” plywood, or acoustical curtains with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 22. The Applicant shall submit the details of the proposed sound wall in conjunction with any application for a building or grading permit, and the details of the proposed sound wall shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director.

23. In the event the Applicant should desire to construct the proposed freestanding sign with two sign faces as opposed to the currently proposed single sign face, the freestanding sign shall be revised to comply with the maximum sign area limits in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3). Based on the 135- foot frontage of the Project site, the maximum sign area for the freestanding sign shall be 101.25 sf. Consistent with PMC section 9-4.2908(c), both sides of the freestanding sign shall count towards the maximum allowed sign area. The final design of the freestanding sign shall be indicated in the master sign program submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit for the freestanding sign.

24. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.

Building Division of the Planning Department

25. The Project shall require review and approval of a grading permit and a building permit prior to commencement of any construction activities.

26. Each unit shall be required to provide separate energy calculations and independent solar systems.

Engineering Division of Public Works Department

27. The City Council of the City of Pacifica will need to accept offer of easements for Emergency Vehicle Access and Public Use Access prior to the filling of a final subdivision map.

11.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-6

28. Should the Applicant desire to record the final map prior to completion and acceptance of improvements, Applicant may enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Pacifica to construct all on-site and off-site improvements, as depicted on the approved Tentative Map and any conditions and mitigations imposed on this Project, prior to approval of the final map and all necessary fees and bonds associated with this agreement, including applicable Park Land Dedication fees as determined by the Planning Director, shall be paid by the applicant.

29. Should the Applicant desire to record the final map prior to completion and acceptance of improvements, a bond in an amount determined by the City Engineer must be provided. The bond maybe in the form of cash, instrument of credit or surety bond. In addition, an improvement agreement shall be executed to guarantee that the work will be done in accordance with the approved plans.

30. Prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but not limited to:

A. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.

B. Plan, profile and cross sections of the proposed driveways. The proposed driveway shall not exceed the maximum grade of 18 percent.

C. Curb ramps on both sides of the driveways.

D. Design Geotechnical Report analyzing the proposed on-site and off-site improvements including but not limited to the driveways and retaining wall.

E. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

31. Prior to approval of the final map, the Applicant shall verify that all public and private utilities have been provided to serve the subdivision. Approvals and/or agreements shall be obtained from all utilities.

32. The form, contents, submittal, approval, and filling of a final subdivision map (or final parcel map) shall conform to the following:

A. Surveys required. An accurate and complete survey of the land to be subdivided shall be made by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. All monuments, property lines, and center lines of streets, alleys, and easements adjoining or within the subdivision shall be tied into the survey. The allowable error of closure on any portion of the parcel map shall not exceed 1/10,000 for field closures and 1/20,000 for calculated closures.

B. Forms and contents. The form and contents of the parcel map shall conform to the final map form and contents requirements of Pacifica Municipal Code Section 10-1.504 and Pacifica Municipal Code Section 10-1.505 of, except for subsection (6) of subsection (c).

C. Preliminary submittal. The subdivider shall submit prints of the parcel map to the City Engineer for checking. The preliminary prints shall be accompanied by copies of the data, plans, reports, and documents required for final maps by Pacifica Municipal Code Section 10-1.506.

D. Review and approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the parcel map, and the subdivider's engineer shall make corrections and/or additions until the map is acceptable to the City Engineer. The subdivider's engineer shall submit the original tracing of the map, corrected to its final form and signed by all parties required to execute the certificates on the map, to the City Engineer. The City Clerk or his or her authorized agent

11.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-7
shall transmit the approved parcel map directly to the County Clerk for transmittal to the County Recorder.

33. City Council approval shall be required prior to recording a final map.

Wastewater Division of Public Works Department

34. Irrigation and sprinkler systems shall not drain into sanitary sewer system.

35. Trash enclosure shall be shown on plans to have a roof and berm around enclosure to prevent rainwater from entering the sanitary sewer system.

36. All sanitary sewer system connections shall be shown on the building permit plans to connect to the main line sewer on Crespi Drive.

North County Fire Authority (NCFA)

37. Fire sprinkler system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

38. Approval of Alternative Methods and Materials shall be required for the Project. Applicant shall submit a request form and fee for NCFA review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide fire flow information per California Fire Code (CFC), Appendix B.

40. Fire extinguishing/hood system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

41. Fire alarm system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

42. Fire alarm system shall be monitored, per CFC.

43. Key Box is required. Apply for approved hardware at NCFA Administration.

44. Portable fire extinguishers(s) are required. Mount fire extinguishers 3-5 feet above floor.

45. Illuminated address identification is required.

46. Utility identification is required.

47. Doors shall be easily openable in one motion without special knowledge, key or effort per California Building Code (CBC). Use of thumb operated deadbolts prohibited unless integrated with latch.

48. Illuminated exit signs and emergency egress illumination is required.

49. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief that Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is provided as required by CFC Section 510.

Added by Planning Commission on March 7, 2022

11.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

City Council Meeting of June 27, 2022
A-8

50. Upon final map approval, the Applicant shall provide written notice to the adjacent single-family residential property owner at the point of connection for the emergency overflow shown on Sheet TM-3 not less than 90 days prior to commencing the improvement located in the City’s stormdrain easement, and an additional written follow-up notification not less than 48 hours prior to commencement of the work. The improvement may proceed with the improvement design as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer upon the Applicant’s fulfillment of this obligation.

51. The required heritage tree replacement ratio shall be 3:1 resulting in a minimum of nine replacement trees for the three heritage trees removed by the Project. Related to the 27 Arroyo willow plantings, not less than 20 percent of the replacement trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size.

52. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise the Project plans to include a raised walkway structure along the southern boundary of the developed portion of the Project site that projects into the wetlands area at the southern half of the site. The additional raised walkway structure shall connect to the proposed deck walkway included on Sheet A-1.14 of the Project plans in order to provide additional wetlands interpretive opportunities and usable open space for Project occupants. The design and materials of this additional raised walkway shall be consistent with the design and materials of the deck walkway included on Sheet A-1.14 of the Project plans, and shall further be a raised and restricted boardwalk path that prevents pedestrians from existing into the wetlands. The precise location, extent, design, and materials of the additional raised walkway structure shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. ***END***

11.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of

EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (“MMRP”) OF THE “570 CRESPI DRIVE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY,” DATED DECEMBER 2021, CEQA CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021120126.

11.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING REZONING RZ-194-16, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-116-19, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-4-21 TO REZONE PROPERTY TO THE C2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT, TO ADD CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL USES AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; AND TO APPROVE A

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

BENEFITS INCLUDING OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TO ALLOW

CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT CONSISITING OF 3,165 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND 19 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT 570 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-310) AND A PORTION OF 540 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-420).

WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixed-use development including one two-story mixed-use building with three residential units and 3,165 sf of commercial space, two three-story residential buildings behind the street-facing mixed-use building consisting of 16 townhouse residential units; construction of a freestanding sign; merger of two parcels located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive (APNs 022-162-420 and 022-162- 310); removal of five heritage trees; a condominium subdivision; construction of off-site parking, circulation and landscaping improvements at 540 Crespi Drive; construction of a wetlands interpretive sign; a development agreement with certain public and developer benefits; a General Plan amendment to revise the “Commercial” land use designation to allow additional configurations of residential development on a commercial site; a zoning text amendment to revise the list of conditional uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district to allow additional configurations of residential development; and a rezoning to change the zoning classification to the C-2 zoning district (“Project”)(File No. 2016-004); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21 (“Legislative Items”) on March 7, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. 2022-006 by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention initiating and recommending City Council approval of the Legislative Items, and also approving ; and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2022-006 was filed on March 17, 2022 (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal on June 27, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. ___________, incorporated herein by reference, on the same date to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2022-006, to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126) to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and to approve General Plan Amendment GPA96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, Development Agreement DA-4- 21, Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization.

11.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of NOW, THEREFORE, based on the staff report and other written materials, and all oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Findings. Findings for denial of the Appeal set forth in Resolution No. ____ are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Specific findings of fact for approval of the Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21 are contained in City Council Resolution No. ____ adopted on June 27, 2022, including without limitation findings related to the consistency of the Project with the General Plan, and the City Council incorporatesthe findings herein by reference.

SECTION 3. CEQA Compliance. The City Council adopted Resolution No. ________ on June 27, 2022, certifying that the IS/MND for the Project had been prepared in accordance and full compliance with CEQA, had been made available and circulated via the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2021120126) for review and comment by interested members of the public and relevant agencies as required by law, and had been presented to and reviewed and considered by this City Council prior to the Council’s decision on the Project. Therefore, the City Council does hereby find that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the IS/MND and comments received thereon), that there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as revised and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment and the Council’s adoption of the IS/MND entitled “570 Crespi Drive Project Initial Study” dated December 2021, and its adoption of the MMRP dated January 2022 and included as an exhibit to Resolution No. ________, constitute the valid environmental review for this Project and fulfill the Council’s obligations under CEQA pursuant to adoption of this Ordinance. The IS/MND and MMRP are herein incorporated into this Ordinance by reference. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Planning Department of the City of Pacifica, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044.

SECTION 4. Reclassification. Rezoning RZ-194-16 is hereby approved to amend Section Map 23 of the Zoning Map of the City of Pacifica, as described in Section 9-4.302 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to reclassify the Project site to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district as depicted in Exhibit 1 to this Ordinance. The specific area affected by this zoning reclassification is more particularly described in the legal description included as Exhibit 2 to this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Amendment. Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 is hereby approved to amend Section 9-4.1101(b) of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) to add a new subsection (11) to create a new conditional use in the C-2 zoning district, as follows:
“(11) One or more dwelling units on the same lot or parcel as a commercial use when the residential use is either located in the same building as the commercial use above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) or in other locations on the same lot or parcel (horizontal mixed use).” SECTION 6. Approval. Development Agreement DA-4-21 is hereby approved in substantially similar form as attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3, with minor technical, nonsubstantive revisions as may be approved by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney.

The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute documents and take other actions on behalf of City, which are not expressly and specifically reserved for the City Council, to implement and effectuate the terms of the Development Agreement.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining

11.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with State law.

SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of __________ , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

11.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of

EXHIBIT
1 REZONING RZ-194-16

ZONING SECTION MAP

11.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of

11.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of EXHIBIT 2

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land referred to is situated in the County of San Mateo, City of Pacifica, State of California, and is described as follows:

Portion of Lot 1, as shown on the Map of the Southerly Regan Tract in San Pedro Ranch, filed in the Office of the Recorder of San Mateo County, State of California on November 9, 1872 in Book 1 of Maps at Page 26 and a copy entered in Book 19 of Maps at Page 16 and being more particularly described as:

Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of that certain 60 foot strip or parcel of land, described in deed from the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, a Corporation, to County of San Mateo, a political subdivision of the State of California, dated November 3, 1939 and Recorded July 18, 1941 in Book 980 of Official Records of San Mateo County at Page 1, distant thereon 446.93 feet Southeasterly from the point of intersection thereof with the Southeasterly line of the State Highway, Route 56, Section D, San Mateo County, extended Northwesterly; thence along the Southwesterly line of said land so conveyed to the County of San Mateo, South 53° 01’ East 80.16 feet; thence leaving said last mentioned line, South 40° 16’ West 535.43 feet, to the Southwesterly line of that certain 173.2 Acre tract of land described in deed from the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, a corporation, to Egidio Maracci, dated August 1, 1941 and Recorded August 19, 1941 in Book 982 of Official Records of San Mateo County at Page 55; thence along said last mentioned line, North 65° 26’ West 83.13 feet; thence North 40° 16’ East 553.33 feet to the point of beginning.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion as described in deed from Ejnar Christensen and Eva Christensen, his wife to The City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation in the State of California Recorded October 2, 1964 as Instrument No. 71999X in Book 4809 at Page 452 of Official Records.

APN: 022-162-310; and
Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of that certain 60-foot strip or parcel of land described in the deed from the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, a corporation, to County of San Mateo, a political subdivision of the State of California, dated November 3, 1939 and recorded July 18, 1941, in Book 980 of Official Records of San Mateo County, at Page 1; distant thereon 391.93 feet southeasterly from the point of intersection thereof with the southeasterly line of the State Highway, Route 56, Section D, San Mateo County, California, extended northwesterly; thence along the southwesterly line of said land so conveyed to County of San Mateo, south 53° 01' east, 55 feet; thence leaving said last mentioned line, south 40° 16' west, 553.33 feet to the southwesterly line of that certain 173.2 acre tract of land described in the deed from the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, a corporation, to Egidio Maracci, dated August 1, 1941 and recorded August 19, 1941, in Book 982 of Official Records of San Mateo County, at Page 55; thence along said last mentioned line, north 65° 26' west, 57.03 feet; and thence north 40° 16' east, 565.61 feet to the point of beginning. Being a portion of Lot 1, as shown on that certain map entitled, "Map of the Southerly Regan Tract on San Pedro Ranch", which map was filed in the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California, on November 9, 1872, in Book 1 of Maps, at Page 26, and a copy entered in Book 19 of Maps, at Page 16. Excepting therefrom said land conveyed to the City of Pacifica, recorded February 11, 1970, Book 6747, Page 677, under Recorder's Serial No. 98675-AC Official Records.

APN: 022-162-420

11.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of

EXHIBIT
3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-4-21

11.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance to Approve Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement (4980 : Appeal of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-006

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-811-16, USE PERMIT UP-76-16, PARKING EXCEPTION PE-183-19, SIGN PERMIT S-129-19, VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SUB-233-16, AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION; AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-4-21, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-96-19, REZONING RZ-194-16, AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-116-19, AND TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DEFINITION FOR “COMMERCIAL” AND SECTION 9-4.1101(b) OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL USES AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; AND TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISITING OF 3,165 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND 19 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT 570 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-310) AND CERTAIN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 540 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-420); AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Brendan Murphy (“Applicant”)
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixeduse development including one two-story mixed-use building with three residential units and 3,165 sf of commercial space, two three-story residential buildings behind the street-facing mixed-use building consisting of 16 townhouse residential units; construction of a freestanding sign; merger of two parcels located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive (APNs 022-162-420 and 022-162-310); removal of three heritage trees; a condominium subdivision; construction of off-site parking, circulation and landscaping improvements at 540 Crespi Drive; construction of a wetlands interpretive sign; a development agreement with certain public and developer benefits; a General Plan amendment to revise the “Commercial” land use designation; a zoning text amendment to revise the list of conditional uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and a rezoning to change the zoning classification to the C2 zoning district (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendment would revise the “Commercial” land use designation to allow for residential dwelling units in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would add a provision under “Conditional Uses” for the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district in PMC Section 9-4.1101(b) that would align with the proposed General Plan amendment and would allow for residential dwelling units in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor; and WHEREAS, the proposed Rezoning would change the zoning classification of the Project site from M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district to allow mixed-use commercial and residential development which are currently prohibited in the M-1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement provide for public and developer benefits resulting from negotiations between the City of Pacifica (“City”) and Applicant; and

11.c
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 2 WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit because it would involve new construction in a commercial zoning district pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3201(a) and because it would include construction of a clustered housing development pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2403(a); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Use Permit because it would include residential uses pursuant to the proposed zoning text amendment to PMC section 9-4.1101(b), because the use would abut an R district pursuant to PMC section 9-4.1102(i), and because it would include a residential clustered housing development pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2403(a); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Parking Exception because the Applicant requests an exception to off-street parking requirements pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2824(a); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Sign Permit because it would construct a freestanding sign pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2906(b); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map because it would subdivide airspace into five or more parcels (i.e., condominiums) pursuant to PMC section 10-1.302; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.1 and Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines located in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, the City, as CEQA lead agency, determined that prior to considering the approval of the Project that an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated December 2021 to consider, identify and analyze all potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126), which concluded that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources, and that all the potentially significant impacts of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the availability of the IS/MND and its intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration to and sought comments from all interested individuals and agencies on the IS/MND as required by CEQA by (i) Publishing “Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 570 Crespi Drive Project in the City of Pacifica” (“NOI”) in the Pacifica Tribune newspaper on December 8, 2021; (ii) Submission of the NOI to the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo for posting; (iii) Provision of copies of the NOI to individuals and organizations that previously submitted written requests for the notice; (iv) Publication of a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126; and, (v) Posting of the draft IS/MND on the City of Pacifica Planning Department webpage; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described notices provided, the City made the IS/MND available for a 30-day review and comment period that ran from December 8, 2021, to January 10, 2022; and

11.c
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 3 WHEREAS, the City received no public or agency comment letters on the IS/MND during the 30- day public comment period; because no comments were received during the public comment period, the City has not prepared a Response to Comments (“RTC”) document to respond to comment letters received on the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final IS/MND consisting of the IS/MND and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) which includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, along with the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measures, the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign-off that the mitigation measure has been implemented; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the Planning Commission’s intent to hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the Project as required by law by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in the Pacifica Tribune on February 23, 2022, and by mailing the Notice of Public Hearing to 332 surrounding property owners, occupants and interested parties on February 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the IS/MND and MMRP prior to making its decision to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission (“Commission”) held a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

3. The IS/MND and MMRP have been prepared, circulated for public review, and adopted pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

4. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the IS/MND, MMRP and all written documentation and public comments prior to approval of the proposed Project and finds the IS/MND reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

5. The IS/MND constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete document in compliance with all legal standards.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby certify that the IS/MND has been prepared in accordance and full compliance with CEQA, has been made available and circulated via the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2021120126) for review and comment by interested members of the public and relevant agencies as required by law, and has been presented to and reviewed and considered by this Planning Commission prior to the Commission’s decision on the Project. Therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby find that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the IS/MND and comments received thereon), that there is no substantial evidence

11.c
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 4 that the Project, as revised and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment and adopts the IS/MND entitled “570 Crespi Drive Project Initial Study” dated December 2021, and also adopts the MMRP dated January 2022 and included as Exhibit B to this Resolution, as the valid environmental review for this Project. The IS/MND and MMRP are herein incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Planning Department of the City of Pacifica, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission authorizes Planning Department staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby intend to initiate a General Plan amendment to the ”Commercial” land use designation as provided on page 33 of the General Plan, as follows:
“Commercial – Indicates the variety of potential commercial uses the City might attract, including visitor-serving commercial, retail commercial, office, heavy commercial and light industrial. The type of commercial use recommended for a site is stated in the General Plan Land Use Description. Mixed residential and commercial uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) and in other locations on the same site (horizontal mixed use)the dwelling units are located above the commercial uses. Intensity of residential development shall be regulated with a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby intend to initiate a zoning text amendment to add a new subsection (11) to section 9-4.1101(b) of the PMC to add a new conditional use to the C-2 zoning district, as follows:
“One or more dwelling units on the same lot or parcel as a commercial use when the residential use is either located in the same building as the commercial use above the ground floor (vertical mixed use) or in other locations on the same lot or parcel (horizontal mixed use).” BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby intend to initiate rezoning of the Project site located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19 and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, as set forth above, based on the following discussion:

1. General Plan Consistency
The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would be consistent with the following General Plan policies:
a. Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation (Circulation Element #15); b. Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood (Land Use Element #8); and
c. Prioritize in-fill residential development (Housing Element #4.D.i and 8.A).

11.c
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 5 The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would increase the flexibility of mixed-use projects in the C-2 zoning district throughout the City by allowing residential uses to be located in places other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor. The increased flexibility to design projects in this manner will result in site planning and placement of residential and commercial uses in their optimal respective locations, rather than constraining them to the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor (as currently required), which would promote orderly growth in land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would protect and enhance neighborhood character by allowing multiple smaller scale buildings that better fit into the existing developed environment of a neighborhood, which would protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby recommend City Council approval of Rezoning RZ-194-16, as set forth above, based on the following discussion:

As explained above, Pacifica Municipal Code section 2-2.202 directs the Planning Commission to make recommendations and provide advice to the City Council in the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the City's Zoning Law and other matters which provide for and control the future physical development and conservation of the City, based upon certain characteristics of the community. Also noted above, the Planning Commission is not bound by specific findings when making its recommendation to the City Council on a proposed rezoning. It may base its recommendation on factors pertaining to general health, safety, and welfare of the community, as well as other relevant factors such as neighborhood narratives, policies, and programs in the existing General Plan. Similarly, per PMC section 9-4.3501, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council rezoning amendments whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendments.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council to approve Rezoning RZ-194-16 is based on the following discussion:
• General Plan Consistency
The proposed rezoning would be consistent with the following General Plan policies:

1. Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation (Circulation Element #15);

2. Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood (Land Use Element #8); and

3. Prioritize in-fill residential development (Housing Element #4.D.i and 8.A). • Existing Lot
The site can be adequately accessed from Crespi Drive and can obtain all utilities from existing sources within the Crespi Drive public right-of-way. The site’s location and layout, particularly its relatively flat topography and the in-fill nature of development on the site, make it suitable for the density, intensity, and type of development as part of a rezoning to the C-2 zoning district concurrently with the proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment, and approval of these items would not threaten public health, safety, or welfare.

11.c
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 6 • Surrounding Neighborhood
The surrounding neighborhood includes a mixture of land uses including low- and high-density residential, commercial, and public facilities. The project area is characterized by relatively smallscale buildings except for the larger senior housing project at 555 Crespi Drive. A mixed-use project on the project site would blend harmoniously with these varied uses in the vicinity. The proposed Project would be compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses, including the following:
(1) 555 Crespi Drive is a senior housing development consisting of 100 units and is situated next to a restaurant/hotel development, single-family home, and three-unit retail development.
(2) 684 Roberts Road is a mixed-use development containing the US Post Office Branch and six apartment units.
(3) 580 Crespi Drive has 25 commercial units
(4) 610 Crespi Drive has multiple self-storage units.
(5) 640 Crespi Drive has multiple commercial units.

For additional context, Attachment H of the staff report shows the neighboring compatible uses.

These properties have been developed in a manner compatible with the proposed Project and the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project can be developed without adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare to these developments. Therefore, the proposed Project can safely develop without causing adverse neighborhood impacts, and the appropriate General Plan consistency and zoning compliance findings can be made for the development upon approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, rezoning, and zoning text amendment.

In the case of the subject Project, rezoning the site to the C-2 zoning district concurrently with the above-discussed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would afford the Project the ability to locate residential uses in buildings separate from the commercial use would allow a reduction in building massing by separating the Project into three buildings in a manner more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Whereas, without the rezoning, mixed-use development of commercial and residential uses could not occur on the site at all under the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district.
• Maximum Development Potential
The proposed rezoning would not change the maximum development potential of the Project site, which would continue to retain a maximum mixed-use development density of one residential unit per 2,000 square feet of site area (21.8 dwelling units per acre). The maximum development potential of the subject site would include up to 36 residential dwelling units based on its 72,984 sf site area. The Project proposes only 19 residential dwelling units, and does not seek to accomplish the maximum development potential of the site. In addition to 11 percent landscaped area, 46 percent of the project site would remain undeveloped in a natural state. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district is 2,000 sf; the proposed Project provides 3,841 sf in lot area per dwelling unit. The 3,165 square feet of commercial use is also less than could be constructed on the site based on an effective maximum lot coverage of 90 percent in the C-2 zoning district.

11.c
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 7 The proposed rezoning to C-2 from M-1 would also promote orderly growth in land use and enhance and protect the individual character of the surrounding neighborhood by reducing the number of light industrial type uses that may be proposed in proximity to sensitive land uses such as residential land uses and senior housing uses. The existing M-1 zoning district would allow uses permitted in the C-3 zoning district, which could include but not be limited to auto body repair, paint, and upholstery; auto wrecking; and refuse operations and recycling centers. These uses would not be compatible with proximate residential and senior housing uses and a zoning change to C-2 would result in more conventional commercial retail and services land uses which are more compatible with proximate residential uses, including those proposed on the site and existing in the vicinity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby recommend City Council approval of Development Agreement DA-4-21 based on the following factors provided in PMC section 9-4.5007:

1. Other pending applications and approved projects.

The project site is located at 570 Crespi Drive and on a portion of 540 Crespi Drive. The only other pending or approved projects in the vicinity are related to the property at 580 Crespi Drive, known as the “Crespi Business Center.” The Planning Commission approved a tentative subdivision map to authorize a condominium conversion of the existing business park on October 18, 2021 (File No. 2021- 012). The approval would not result in any physical change to the project site and therefore, is not relevant for purposes of this finding. The 580 Crespi Drive site also has a pending master sign program application (File No. 2021-024). If approved by the City as currently proposed, the master sign program would result in negligible changes to the existing site and would have no direct bearing or relationship to the subject Project.

2. The traffic, parking, public service, visual, and other impacts of the proposed development project upon abutting properties and the community.

As analyzed in the discussion of the proposed rezoning application, the project site consists of an in-fill development with direct access to a public street and utilities within Crespi Drive. The proposed development would not result in any adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare as conditioned.

In particular, the Project would be less dense than permissible under its Commercial land use designation in the General Plan, and would result in a project where building mass would be broken up into three buildings as opposed to a single building as would be required under current General Plan and zoning standards. A traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project, as discussed in Section G.XVII of Attachment I of the staff report, also concluded the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to traffic or parking.

3. Ability of the applicant to address public facility needs and financing obligations.

The proposed public benefits in the development agreement would include improvements to the existing Community Center located immediately west of the project site at 540 Crespi Drive. These improvements would include construction of additional off-street parking facilities and a vehicle dropoff at the front of the Community Center. These public improvements would enhance operations at the existing City facility for the benefit of Project occupants and City residents more generally. The development agreement would also require installation of wetlands interpretive signage at the rear of the project site, which would enhance Project occupant appreciation of the natural resources that exist

11.c
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 8 on the broader project site. The development agreement would also require a $272,000 cash payment for an affordable housing contribution, which would support the City’s affordable housing development activities.

Provisions in Article 5 of the development agreement would require the applicant to complete the Community Center and wetlands interpretive sign improvements prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, which would ensure their completion prior to the applicant receiving substantial benefits from development of the Project. Article 5 of the development agreement would also require payment of the affordable housing contribution prior to issuance of a building permit, which would also ensure the payment before the applicant receives substantial benefits from development of the Project.

4. The relationship of the project to the City's growth management program.

Pursuant to Government Code section 66300(b)(1)(D), the City is currently unable to require issuance of a growth management allocation for housing projects as required by PMC section 9-5.03 through January 1, 2025. Therefore, consideration of this factor for approval of a development agreement is inappropriate at this time.

5. The provisions included, if any, for reservation, dedication, or improvement of land for public purposes or accessibility to the public.

As noted above, the proposed public benefits in the development agreement would include improvements to the existing Community Center located immediately west of the project site at 540 Crespi Drive. These improvements would include construction of additional off-street parking facilities and a vehicle drop-off at the front of the Community Center. These public improvements would improve land for public purposes or accessibility to the public.

6. The type and magnitude of the project's economic effects to the City of Pacifica, and of its contribution, if any, toward meeting the City's housing needs, including affordable housing.

The Project would create 3,165 sf of commercial floor area that would create opportunities for new business creation or business expansion within the City.

The Project, with 19 residential units, would be among the largest residential projects approved by the City of Pacifica in recent years. According to the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR) on implementation of the Housing Element, during the years 2015 through 2021, the largest project approved by the City was a 24-unit condominium townhome project at 801 Fassler Avenue. The subject Project would be the next largest project approved by the City since 2015. Additionally, it would be the first project since 2017 to include deed-restricted affordable housing units and would include two units affordable to persons with low incomes, and one unit affordable to persons with moderate incomes. The Project would also make a $272,000 contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund to support future affordable housing development activities by the City.

Therefore, the commercial component of the Project would have a positive impact on the City’s economy, and the residential component of the Project would have a significant positive impact on meeting the City’s housing needs generally and affordable housing needs specifically.

11.c
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 9 7. Any other comparable, relevant factor or factors.

As discussed in the staff report analyzing the development permits for the Project, it would result in an appropriate development of the site given its in-fill nature and access to existing City infrastructure. The Project would be within a relatively walkable portion of Pacifica given the flat topography of the surrounding area, proximity to Cabrillo Elementary school, convenience shopping in the vicinity, a Safeway grocery store at Highway 1 and Linda Mar Boulevard, as well as nearby Coastal Trail and Linda Mar Beach recreational opportunities. The Project, in whole, inclusive of the provisions of the proposed development agreement, would be positive for the City of Pacifica and would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that none of the following findings can be made that would preclude issuance of a site development permit under PMC Section 9-4.3204:

1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood.

The Project is located on Crespi Drive, which contains public facilities, commercial, multi-family residential, single-family residential, and mixed-use land uses in the vicinity of the Project. As such, the location, size, intensity, and general character of the proposed mixed-use building would be compatible with the development in the vicinity. Similarly, the location, size, intensity, and general character of the two residential buildings are consistent with the existing multi-family residential buildings located on the north side of Crespi Drive in the vicinity. The number of residential units proposed on the site meets the density standard specified for the site, which sets the minimum lot area as 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Based on the site area of 72,984 sf (1.68 acres) and the proposed 19 units, the lot area per unit amounts to 3,941 sf per unit.

The Project’s design, but separating inbound and outbound driveways, creates a safer pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern than combined inbound/outbound driveways because vehicles and pedestrians must focus only on a single direction of traffic. This makes transiting the existing pedestrian sidewalk along the Crespi Drive frontage safer for vehicles and pedestrians.

Based on the foregoing, there is evidence to support a conclusion that the Project would not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.

2. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses.

The parking for the Project would be located in covered and uncovered parking areas located away from the traffic along Crespi Drive. All off-street parking spaces would be accessed from driveways interior to the project site. Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses with respect to traffic on the street.

11.c
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 10 3. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.

A total of 11 percent of the site area would be planted with landscaping, in excess of the 10 percent requirement in PMC section 9-4.1102(d). Only one off-street parking area, that located to the east of Building A, would be directly visible from the public right-of-way. A planter area would be located immediately north of this parking area to provide screening from the street. Other service areas, such as the trash enclosure for the Project located at the north end of Building B, would not be directly visible from the public right-of-way and would be substantially screened from public view by solid gates integrated into the enclosure’s design and by placement of Building A. The Project does not feature large expanses of paving as the paved driveways and off-street parking areas are broken into three segments that limits the aggregate size of paving visible from any single vantage point.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not reserve insufficient landscaped areas for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.

4. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.

The maximum height of the proposed buildings would not exceed 35’-0”. Development regulations for the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district do not require setbacks; however, the Project does provide 10’-0” front and side setbacks (excluding balcony areas), and a 235’-2” rear setback. Additionally, the minimum distance between buildings internal to the site is 25’-0” which would prevent crowding. The Project also consists of three buildings as opposed to a single, larger building as a result of the proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment, which serves to provide more open area on the site which in turn increases open access to light and air on the project site and other property in the neighborhood. As it relates to the adjacent properties closest to the project site – the property to the east at 580 Crespi Drive does not have any windows on the side of the building facing the project site and would not be impacted by reduced access to light or area; and the property to the west at 540 Crespi Drive is located more than 60 feet away which would prevent the Project from impacting access to light or air based on the 35-foot maximum height of the Project. Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed development would not unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other properties in the neighborhood.

5. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area.

The closest R-zoned district to the commercial building of the proposed Project is the Ocean View Senior Apartments at 555 Crespi Drive. The property at 555 Crespi Drive is located approximately 120 feet northwest of the project site in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district. As demonstrated on the building rendering on Sheet A-0.51 of Attachment C of the staff report, the design of the commercial

11.c
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 11 and residential mixed-use building is high-quality, and uses an aesthetically appealing combination of materials, colors, and architectural design features.

Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the character of the R District area in the vicinity of the site.

6. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Municipal Code.

There are 12 trees identified in the Project plans. The Project proposes to remove six trees or small tree clusters, three of which are heritage trees, to facilitate construction of the proposed Project including pine and Monterey cypress trees. There are six trees that would be maintained: five trees located to the rear of the Project site and another located at the northwestern corner. The three heritage trees include two Monterey cypress trees and one Monterey pine tree which the applicant is requesting approval to remove. An arborist report was prepared evaluating the condition of the heritage trees. The two Monterey cypress trees were found to be in fair condition and the Monterey pine tree was found to be dead. The arborist that prepared the report recommended removal of the dead Monterey pine tree and indicates that while one Monterey cypress tree is in fair condition it has been heavily pruned in order to accommodate Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) transmission lines and is in close proximity to an adjacent building.

The landscape plan also includes the maintenance of an existing Arroyo Willow grove, a California native tree-like shrub endemic to Pacifica, and would plant 27 additional Arroyo Willows along the western and southern perimeter of the developed area. The landscape plan also includes planting shrubs, vines, and perennials and 13 trees throughout the site.

Given the landscaping plan adds substantive vegetation including 13 new trees and 27 Arroyo Willows, and given that the Project has proposed to remove only those trees essential to development of the Project while preserving more than half the site in an undeveloped condition, the proposed removal of the trees on the site is not excessive for purposes of this finding. The PMC contemplates removal of heritage trees based on the economic viability of the site with the trees removed and the number of healthy trees the parcel can support. As a general matter, only as many trees are being removed as necessary to construct the Project, which results in tree removal which is not excessive.

The Project would include the import of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill. However, given the existing flat topography of the site, and the purpose of the fill being primarily to carry the existing grade at the front (north) of the site to the rear (south), the Project would not damage or destroy natural grade of the site for purposes of this finding.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a finding that the Project would not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Municipal Code.

11.c
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 12 7. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance.

The proposed Project incorporates several elements in the design of the structure to avoid monotony in external appearance across its three buildings. These elements include varied roof lines and building profile due to the variation in height and levels between the street-facing mixed-use building and the internal residential buildings. The Project also utilizes different exterior materials including stucco, metal, aluminum, and cedar-colored fiber cement board, opaque glass to define balconies, and incorporates a mixture of complementary colors such as bronze, green, cedar, grey, and black which work well to enhance the design of the buildings. The Project includes plantings consisting of shrubs, perennials, and vines to lend interest to the site. Therefore, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not include an insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance.

8. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

The City has adopted Design Guidelines which are intended to accomplish the following purposes:
• Ensure at least a minimum standard of design through the application of consistent policies.
• Encourage new construction which exceeds minimum standards and discourage construction which falls short of those standards.
• Provide a framework for review and evaluation of design proposals. • Implement applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Plan goals and policies. • Expedite and facilitate the planning permit process.
• Provide direction for design and redesign of projects.

The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. Rather, they address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and the Planning Commission may still find the project consistent with the Design Guidelines. It is up to the Commission’s discretion to determine the appropriate balance and relative priority of the guidelines for a particular project when considering whether a project has achieved Design Guidelines consistency.

In the Planning Commission’s assessment, as conditioned, the proposed improvements at the site are consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines. Major areas of Project consistency with the Design Guidelines are discussed below:

SITE PLANNING
a. Site Improvements. Locate site improvements such as buildings, parking areas, and walkways to take advantage of desirable site features. For example, existing healthy trees and distinctive berms or rock outcroppings should be incorporated into site design. Buildings should be oriented to capitalize on views of hills and ocean.

11.c
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 13 Site improvements should be designed to work with site features, not against them. Lot grading should be minimized and disruption of natural features such as trees, ground forms, rocks, and water courses should be avoided.

The site is a 135’-0” wide parcel oriented in a north to south direction adjacent to Crespi Drive one block east of the Highway 1. The City’s General Plan envisions the area opposite of Roberts Road on Crespi Drive to be developed for commercial use and strengthening commercial uses in the area.

The proposed mixed-use development furthers that objective by adding commercial space and additional foot-traffic by way of adding 19 residential dwelling units. The proposed development is laid out to complement the rectangular shape and orientation of the site but seeks to draw focus to the street-facing mixed-use building with most residential units constructed behind the mixed-use building. Additionally, vacant open space land would be retained to the rear of the site.

No distinctive natural features are present on-site except for clusters of Arroyo Willow shrubs, Monterey cypress trees and a Monterey pine tree. The Arroyo Willow shrubs located along the western perimeter and Monterrey cypress and pine trees located to the rear of the site would be maintained and additional Arroyo Willow plantings would reinforce the site’s natural character.
b. Lighting. Exterior lighting should be subdued, and should enhance building design as well as provide for safety and security. Lighting which creates glare for occupants or neighbors should not be used. In general, large areas should be illuminated with a few low shielded fixtures. Tall fixtures which illuminate large areas should be avoided.

The proposed development would include exterior lighting for pedestrian areas and five lights on 18-foot poles for vehicles. The lighting fixtures proposed downlights, as shown on Sheet A-1.18 of the Project Plans (Attachment C of the staff report). As such, the proposed lighting would not create glare for occupants and neighbors. The Planning Director will review any revisions to the lighting plans, in the event the applicant proposes additional exterior lighting during the building permit stage.
c. Parking. The visual impact of parking areas should be minimized when appropriate to the site by locating parking areas to the rear or side of the property, rather than along street frontages. Ample landscaping should be used to help screen parking areas from both exterior and interior views.

The Project would provide on-site parking for the townhouse units in grade level garages and additional uncovered parking for townhouses, commercial use, and one-bedroom flats.

The parking areas are located primarily on the interior of the project site and the majority of parking areas will not be visible from the street. Additionally, the area will be landscaped to provide visual breaks between asphalt and building structures, and to screen parking areas.

11.c
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 14 BUILDING DESIGN
d. Design. The style and design of new buildings should be in character with that of the surrounding neighborhood. This does not mean that new buildings should be identical to existing buildings on neighboring lots, but that new buildings should complement, enhance, and reinforce the positive characteristics of surrounding development. This can be accomplished by incorporating the dominant architectural features of an area into the design of new development. Such features may include bay windows, chimneys, balconies, porches, roof shapes, and other architectural details and materials.

The Crespi Drive area was developed over different periods and includes various architectural styles. Buildings along this street range from one- to three-stories and include Victorian revival, traditional, and contemporary architecture. There are community facilities, commercial structures, and residential structures.

The proposed buildings will be located at the southwest section of the Crespi DriveRoberts Road intersection. They will be flanked by a one-story stucco commercial structure to the east and the Pacifica Community Center, with concrete as the primary exterior material, to the west. Immediately across Crespi Drive, there are three-story multi-family residential and single-story commercial wood-paneled structures. To the rear of the project site are a mix of one- and two-story single-family residences. Most structures in the immediate area employ flat roofs, with one pitched-roof structure at the corner of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road.

The proposed building is contemporary in its style and consists of one two-story pitched roof building abutting Crespi Drive. Similar to other commercial structures on Crespi Drive, the commercial ground floor would have large windows and glass doors. The internal residential buildings have roof top decks with half pitched roofs above the third story. The buildings feature a mixture of stucco, metal, aluminum, and cedar-colored fiber cement board siding exteriors. Overall, the proposed building would complement, enhance, and reinforce the positive characteristics of surrounding buildings. e. Scale. An important aspect of design compatibility is scale. Scale is the measure of the relationship of the relative overall size of one structure with one or more other structures.

Scale is also used to refer to a group of buildings, a neighborhood, or an entire city. A development can be “out of scale” with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density.

A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwellings, which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged. The City’s height limitation is a maximum only, and the maximum height may often be inappropriate when considered in the context of surrounding development and topography. The “carrying capacity” of a given site is also an important factor in determining appropriate scale and lot coverage. As with the height limitation, the City’s lot coverage limitation is a maximum only.

11.c
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 15 The proposed development is in a neighborhood that includes one- to three-story structures. The developments immediately adjacent to the north are one- or two-stories.

The developments to the east and west are single story, while to the south of the site are one- or two-stories. The proposed building is two stories along Crespi Drive and to the interior of the site the buildings increase to three stories. The proposed interior residential buildings include a third-story deck on the west side that scales down the building on this side and is adjacent to the proposed two-story structure facing Crespi Drive. This feature of the building’s design helps reduces the scale of the overall development for compatibility with the scale of the surrounding buildings. f. Details. Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale. Wall insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the scale of larger buildings.

The proposed building includes several architectural features and details that further help create a sense of human scale. These features and details include a distinct base, balconies, and various sized windows to break up the massing, and different colors, materials, and textures providing articulation.
g. Materials. Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. In areas with either historic or architecturally significant structures, the use of similar exterior construction materials should be used in new construction in order to maintain neighborhood character. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

The proposed material palette draws upon the surrounding neighborhood. The streetfacing façade is characterized by large glass windows and doors articulated with metal glazing, corrugated metal sidings, and aluminum columns on the first floor, and balconies accentuated with metal siding and opaque glass contrasted with stucco and wood wall siding and a standing seam metal roof. The interior residential buildings include slate greycolored and cedar-colored fiber cement boards, and stucco for siding with standing seam metal roofs. The materials bring variety to the appearance of the building, and do not appear incongruous with surrounding buildings. Individual buildings along Crespi Drive utilize concrete, stucco, and cedar-colored fiber cement board sidings. The proposed Project takes these materials and incorporates them in a cohesive way. h. Color. Building color should be compatible with the neighborhood and should reinforce and complement the visual character of the building’s environment. Multiple colors applied to a single building should relate to changes of material or form.

As shown on Sheets A-3.5, A-3.6, A-4.3, and A-4.4 of the Project Plans (Attachment C of the staff report), the proposed color palette consists predominately of three neutral colors: grey, brown, and white consistent with the color schemes of buildings immediately nearby. Darker greys are used as an accent and provide contrast and are used through the standing seam metal roof, corrugated metal siding, columns, metal balconies, and window glazing.

11.c
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 16 i. Privacy. Consideration should be given to the impact of development on the privacy of surrounding properties. Use judicious windows placement and appropriate landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of privacy.

The building to the east does not contain any windows that face the project site. To the west, the Pacifica Community Center has limited windows that would face the residential buildings. There is a 235’-2” rear setback from adjacent property lines providing sufficient distance and privacy to the single-family residences along Anza Drive. The project site is also across Crespi Drive and is downhill from residential buildings to the north which contributes to maintaining the privacy of these buildings. The nearest distance between the proposed Project and a residential building on the north side of Crespi Drive is approximately the property at 555 Crespi Drive, located approximately 120 feet northwest of the project site in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district. As a result, privacy of the surrounding properties would not be impacted because of the proposed building.
j. Consistency. There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations. All elevations need not be identical, but a sense of overall design continuity must occur.

Window treatment and trim, for example, should be carried out around the entire building, not just on the most visible sides.

The proposed buildings are architecturally consistent on all four elevations. The number of openings and size of windows on the different façades of the buildings vary but are consistent across the buildings. Additionally, the applicant has carried the same materials, trim, architectural detailing, and similar shapes of window openings on all sides of the proposed buildings.

LANDSCAPING
k. Purpose. Landscaping should not be used to screen or hide an otherwise unacceptable building. Building architecture should stand on its own, with landscaping incorporated as an integral element of overall project design.

The building architecture is visually pleasing and can stand on its own. The landscaping and plant selection complements the architecture and neutral building color palette.

Building A adjacent to Crespi Drive includes living walls on the south, east, and west façades. The proposed development includes native bioswale grass along much of the perimeter of the site. To the west of the site, between the proposed development and the Pacifica Community Center, there is a mixture of shrubs, perennials, and native grasses.

Shrubs and perennials are used in planters to help provide visual breaks to the asphalt and pedestrian walkways. The Project would add 13 trees situated throughout the site to complement pedestrian and vehicle circulation.
l. Amount and variety. Applicants are encouraged to exceed the minimum amount of landscaping required by the zoning ordinance and landscaping plans should incorporate a variety of plant species. The amount, scale, and nature of landscape materials should be appropriate to the site and/or structure. Large-scale buildings should be complemented by

11.c
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 17 large-scale landscaping. Development along major streets should also include large scale trees.

The Project proposes approximately 7,953 sf of area in landscaping, which constitutes 11 percent of the site area and exceeds the minimum required 10 percent of project site in landscaping. The proposed planting palette includes 19 different perennial, shrub, grass, groundcover, tree and vine and vine species many of which are native to the area or California. For example, Arroyo Willow is a dominant plant species existing on-site which is native to California. The proposed Project draws upon this natural condition and plants 27 additional Arroyo Willows throughout the site. The proposed Project would also add a Crape Myrtle tree onsite adjacent to Crespi Drive. Crape Myrtle trees typically grow to 15- 25 feet in height.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the Project would not be inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.

9. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

The proposed mixed-use (commercial/residential) development, as conditioned, would be consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City. General Plan consistency includes, but is not limited to, the following policies:

GENERAL PLAN
Circulation Element.
• Policy No. 4: Provide safe and consistent access for the development.

Access to the site would be provided through two driveways along Crespi Drive. The first driveway, nearest to Highway 1, would take advantage of an existing driveway, would not create an additional curb cut, would be shared with the Pacifica Community Center and is 30’-0” wide. This driveway will serve as an exit driveway for the Project and benefit from the existing line-of-sight. The second driveway, nearest Roberts Road, is 20’-0” wide but will be only an entry way for the Project.

Since this second driveway is near the Crespi Drive-Roberts Road intersection, this would limit conflicts at the intersection from vehicles leaving the project site. The City’s Engineering Division staff has reviewed the development proposal to ensure the new development would be constructed in a safe manner. • Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation.

The Project does not seek to accomplish the maximum development potential of the site. Though the Project provides 11 percent landscaped area, 46 percent of the project site would remain undeveloped in a natural state. Additionally, the proposed residential development would exceed the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,000 sf; the proposed Project provides 3,841 sf in lot area per dwelling unit. The 3,165 square feet of commercial use is also

11.c
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 18 modest. The modest size of the Project, combined with its infill between existing developed properties in an established neighborhood, would promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation.

Conservation Element.
• Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

The landscaping plan for the Project would maintain six of the twelve existing trees and a significant Arroyo Willow grove, a California native tree-like shrub endemic to Pacifica. The proposed Project would also plant an additional 27 Arroyo Willows along the western and southern perimeter of the developed area and would add 13 additional trees. The tree preservation and planting of the Project would conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

Community Design Element.
• Policy No. 1: Encourage the upgrading and maintenance of existing neighborhoods.

The Project would improve the Crespi Drive area through the proposed commercial space which would be of interest to visitors and community members. The Project would also construct 16 townhouses and 3 one-bedroom flats, creating additional housing opportunities and foot traffic for nearby commercial uses. The off-site improvements proposed at the Pacifica Community Center including the new offstreet parking, new drop-off area, and new landscaping, would also contribute to the other Project elements and upgrade and maintain the existing neighborhood.

Community Facilities Element.
• Policy No. 2: Maintain and improve the present level of City services.

Through a development agreement with the City of Pacifica, the Project would enhance accessibility to the Pacifica Community Center by constructing a new passenger drop-off point by the Center’s front door and add 17 new off-street parking spaces. Additionally, the proposed Project would add new landscaping for the Community Center improving the exterior appearance.

Housing Element
• Policy No. 4.D.i: Prioritize in-fill residential development.

Policy No. 8.A: Prioritize mixed-use residential development on in-fill sites.

The proposed Project would be an infill development to add 19 total units to an undeveloped lot situated among other developed properties along Crespi Drive. The proposed Project would include 16 townhouses and three one-bedroom flats.

11.c
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 19 Land Use Element
• Policy No. 8: Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.

The proposed mixed-use (commercial/residential) development is consistent with the commercial and residential uses in this section of Crespi Drive. The nearby land-uses consist of a mixture of residential, commercial and public facility developments including a mixed-use development across the street from the project site and a 100- unit senior housing apartment complex between two commercial developments.

OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE CITY
The Project would also be consistent with other applicable laws of the City, including the following:
a. Below Market Rate Program.

Pursuant to PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47, it is the intent of the City to provide housing units for very low, lower, and moderate income households in residential development projects with eight or more units. No less than 15 percent of all units shall be BMR units.

The proposed Project would provide 19 total residential units and would be required to provide no less than three BMR units. The proposed Project would meet this requirement by making two of the townhouses and one of the one-bedroom flats BMR units. The Project would also make a $272,000 affordable housing contribution to support other affordable housing efforts of the City.
b. C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning Standards.

The proposed development would be located in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district if the rezoning is approved. The Project would be consistent with the applicable C-2 zoning regulations pertaining to use (upon approval of a use permit), height, minimum building site, landscaping, and setbacks as demonstrated in Table 1 of the staff report.

The only zoning standards the Project would not achieve are related to covered parking but the Planning Commission has approved a parking exception to address compliance with PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 28. Importantly, upon a rezoning to C-2, the Project would comply with the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard of 2,000 sf per dwelling unit found in PMC section 9-4.1101(b)(8) (by reference to PMC section 9-

4.1001(b)(11)) by providing 3,841 sf per dwelling unit. c. Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards.

The proposed development would be subject to the Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2402. The Project would be consistent with the applicable development standards in providing usable and private open space, separation from structures, side setbacks of residential standards, trash storage area, and laundry facilities.

11.c
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 20 Based on the above discussion the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City, and the Planning Commission does not believe that there is evidence to make this finding.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-4.2403(c) for approval of a Site Development Permit for a residential clustered housing development:

1. For projects in low density areas, that the privacy of nearby residences will not be reduced to an extent which exceeds that which would normally be reduced by conventional single-family dwellings.

The project site is located in an area designated as “Commercial” in the General Plan and is not a “low density” area for purposes of this finding. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

2. That the architectural features of proposed structures will be integrated harmoniously into the design character of the immediate neighborhood.

As described in further detail above, as conditioned, the Project would be consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines and would be integrated harmoniously into the design character of the immediate neighborhood. In particular, the Project would be consistent with guidelines related to Site Planning and Building Design.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-2.3303(a) pertaining to Use Permit UP-76-16:

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

The proposed Project is a mixed-use development including 3,165 square feet of commercial space, 19 residential units, and off-street parking, circulation, and landscape improvements to the adjacent Pacifica Community Center at 540 Crespi Drive. The residential use of the subject site, which is a conditional use in the proposed C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, would serve to reinforce the commercial areas of Roberts Road as called for in the General Plan neighborhood narrative for the project area by increasing the number of potential customers living in the proposed residential units. The below-market rate (BMR) housing units and additional $272,000 affordable housing contribution would provide much-needed affordable housing that would be beneficial to the broader Pacifica community.

The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would allow the Project’s building mass to be split into multiple buildings, instead of one large building under the current regulations. The three proposed buildings of the Project would result in massing that is consistent with that of the varied uses in the project vicinity including the multi-family residential projects located on the north side of Crespi Drive. While the project site is adjacent to an R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) zoned area to the south, the developed portion of the site would be located approximately 235’-2” from the property lines of the R-1 zoned areas. This significant distance from single-family residences would serve to provide a sufficient buffer from the Project to those areas, and would ensure no adverse impacts result to the residential area. Moreover, the Project components most closely located to the R-1 zoned area to the south are themselves residential

11.c
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 21 uses in Buildings B and C. The commercial component of the Project would be an additional approximately 220 feet from the R-1 zoned area which would provide further buffer and minimization of any potentially adverse impacts to the residential area.

The existing commercial building at 580 Crespi Drive to the east of the project site is located much closer, however. The proposed setback from Building C to the 580 Crespi Drive building would be approximately 10 feet to the Building C wall and 4’-4” to the proposed balconies. Therefore, significant construction activities to build the nine residential units in Building C would occur within close proximity to 580 Crespi Drive. The noise analysis performed for purposes of CEQA review identified potentially high levels of noise of as much as 79 dB(A) transmitting across the property line to 580 Crespi Drive which would have the potential to be disruptive or disturbing to tenants of the commercial building on that site (Attachment I of the staff report, Appendix D, Figure 3). Although the noise generated by the proposed Project would not be considered significant for the purposes of CEQA, the noise levels do warrant further consideration as part of the findings for this use permit.

The City requested that the noise subconsultant of the City’s CEQA consultant prepare a memorandum describing potential noise reduction measures that could be implemented during the construction phase of the Project (Attachment J of the staff report). The noise analysis identified an interior noise level of 50 dB(A) which is the identified maximum noise level for new commercial buildings pursuant to the California Green Building Code. The analysis estimated a reduction of 27 dB(A) based on the materials of the existing building, resulting in a required additional noise reduction of 2 dB(A). The noise analysis recommended installation of a 10‐foot‐ tall temporary sound wall on the project site along the 580 Crespi Drive building façade. The sound wall would consist of stacked hay bales, ¾” plywood, or acoustical curtains with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 22. This would be expected to reduce construction noise within 580 Crespi down to 39 dBA Leq for regular construction activities and should substantially reduce the potential for disturbance to these uses during the Project construction. The Planning Commission has included a condition of approval to require the sound wall installation prior to commencement of construction activities.

With the aforementioned condition of approval addressing construction noise and other conditions of approval, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed Project will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

2. That the use or building applied for is consistent with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City and, where applicable, the local Coastal Plan.

In terms of the General Plan, the proposed Project would be consistent with the definition for Commercial which includes mixed residential and commercial uses. Additionally, the Project is consistent with General Plan policies Circulation Elements 4, 14, and 15; Conservation Element 1; Community Design Element 2; Community Facilities Element 2; Land Use Element 8; and Housing Elements 4.D.i and 8.A.

The Project site is not located in the coastal zone, therefore, the Local Coastal Plan is not applicable to this Project.

11.c
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 22 3. Where applicable, that the use or building applied for is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

As described in further detail above, as conditioned, the Project would be consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines. In particular, the Project would be consistent with guidelines related to Site Planning and Building Design.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-4.2403(c) for approval of a Use Permit for a residential clustered housing development:

1. For projects in low density areas, that the privacy of nearby residences will not be reduced to an extent which exceeds that which would normally be reduced by conventional single-family dwellings.

The above, identical finding in the discussion for approval of a site development permit is hereby incorporated by reference.

2. That the architectural features of proposed structures will be integrated harmoniously into the design character of the immediate neighborhood.

The above, identical finding in the discussion for approval of a site development permit is hereby incorporated by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following finding required by PMC section 9-2824(a) pertaining to Parking Exception PE-183-19 due to practical difficulties and unusual hardship:

1. That the establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in this article as are reasonably possible.

Pursuant to the off-street parking standards in PMC section 9-4.2818, the proposed Project would require 52 off-street parking spaces. This aggregate figure is comprised of parking for the commercial and residential components of the Project. The commercial component of the Project, intended for general retail uses, would require 11 uncovered spaces. The residential component of the Project would require 19 covered parking spaces (carport or garage), 18 uncovered parking spaces, and 4 uncovered guest parking spaces. The Project proposes 47 total off-street parking spaces, comprised of 32 covered parking spaces (two garage spaces per townhouse unit in a tandem configuration) and 15 uncovered spaces. The applicant has not proposed to designate the uncovered spaces for any specific Project component.

However, at least three of the uncovered spaces at the rear of the project site would be likely to function as dedicated spaces for the residential component of the Project because of its distance from the commercial area in Building A.

The Project overall proposes five fewer off-street parking spaces than required by the PMC. However, the PMC’s off-street parking requirements involve more than number of spaces and include other criteria applicable to off-street parking areas. The Project fulfills some but not all of these off-street parking

11.c
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 23 criteria for the various Project components. As noted above, the applicant has not designated the uncovered parking spaces for any Project component. For simplicity of analysis, the Planning Commission has started by assigning spaces to residential components of the Project.

The Project would meet the off-street parking requirement for the two-bedroom townhome units in terms of number of spaces by providing two garage spaces per unit. Except, however, that PMC section 9-4.2813(a) requires that all off-street parking spaces, except those for accessory dwelling units, shall be non-tandem. The Project would meet the off-street parking requirement for the one-bedroom “flat” units in terms of number of spaces (five spaces) but not in terms of at least one covered parking space per unit in PMC section 9-4.2818(a)(2). The Project would meet the guest parking requirements in terms of number of spaces. Lastly, the Project would not meet the requirement for 11 off-street parking spaces for the commercial component of the Project and instead would provide only 6 spaces.

Based on the foregoing, the Project would require a parking exception from the following standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 28:
• Non-tandem parking spaces pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2813(a); • One covered parking space per unit pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2818(a)(2); and • Number of off-street parking spaces for commercial retail uses pursuant to PMC section 9-

4.2818(b)(2).

The primary constraint to provision of off-street parking facilities on the subject site is suitable development area. The applicant has designed the Project to protect the biological resources that exist roughly in the southern half of the project site, as further discussed in the CEQA analysis prepared for the Project (Attachment I of the staff report). As noted in the analysis of the Project in the staff report, the applicant has proposed commercial and residential development less than the maximums that could be permitted pursuant to General Plan and zoning regulations. Therefore, the Project as proposed is modest in scale relative to allowable maximums and faces a practical difficulty and unusual hardship from its attempts to leave the southern half of the project site undisturbed by development.

The applicant has provided off-street parking where feasible on the project site while balancing the need for landscaping, zoning-compliant drive aisles, and other mandatory requirements for the Project. The tandem parking configuration within the garages of the two-bedroom townhouse units is a reasonable alternative to the standards side-by-side garage requirement. Providing side-by-side garages would require nearly twice the width for the proposed Buildings B and C which would cause the Project to encroach into the southern half of the site. Alternatively, the Project could reduce the proposed number of units by approximately half to account for the additional area needed for side-by-side garages. Yet providing fewer housing units would not support the goals of the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan and would not contribute to orderly, in-fill development as supported by other General Plan policies as indicated in the staff report.

The constrained development area of the project site generally limits potential locations for uncovered parking spaces. The applicant has identified uncovered parking locations in all practicable locations on the site while also complying with site development permit findings and Design Guidelines that urge offstreet parking to be located where less visible from the street. To increase ease of use and to encourage commercial customers to use the off-street parking spaces closest to Building A during business hours, the applicant has proposed not to construct three carports for the “flat” units in Building A. Carports would suggest to retail customers that the spaces may be reserved for residential use, which would limit

11.c
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 24 utilization of these spaces. Ensuring consistency of these spaces as uncovered spaces throughout the 12 spaces adjacent to Building A will also enhance consistency in the architectural appearance of the spaces surrounding Building A.

Finally, the aforementioned site constraints and site planning challenges on the project site compound to provide specific challenges to providing the total number of off-street parking spaces required for the commercial component of the Project. Providing the required number of off-street parking spaces would most likely require encroaching into the southern half of the site, which contains important biological resources, or else reducing the number of residential units proposed with the Project, which would run at cross-purposes with General Plan policies to encourage in-fill and affordable housing development.

For the foregoing reasons, there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the applicant faces a practical difficulty and unusual hardship that prevents full compliance with the off-street parking standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 28, and that the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the standards as is reasonably possible.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings required by PMC section 9-4.2906(b) pertaining to Sign Permit S-129-19:

1. A freestanding sign is necessary for the business or businesses located on the premises to achieve a reasonable degree of identification.

The proposed Project is located along a substantially developed segment of Crespi Drive. The properties adjacent to the project site at 540 Crespi Drive and 580 Crespi Drive both have freestanding signs to identify those developments. A freestanding sign is necessary to distinguish the project site from these adjacent properties on this basis. Additionally, with much of the Project located behind Building A at the rear of the project site, a freestanding sign that identifies the name of the development would provide a ready means for businesses and residents to direct visitors to the project site with a simple point of reference to the freestanding sign.

2. The sign is consistent with the intent and provisions of this article.

PMC section 9-4.2901 states that the purpose of the City’s sign regulations is as follows:

The purpose of this article is to permit such signs that will not, by their reason, size, location, construction, or manner of display, endanger the public safety, confuse, mislead, or obstruct the vision necessary for traffic safety, or otherwise endanger the public health, safety, and welfare; and to permit and regulate signs in such a way as to support and complement the land use objectives set forth in the General Plan and the other sections of this chapter to assist in the continuation of existing, and the introduction of new, commercial activities in architectural harmony with the existing and planned City, to provide that signs be tailored to individual businesses, and to encourage excellence in design which will provide signing compatible with the atmosphere of the City which attracts both residents and visitors.

The proposed freestanding sign would be consistent with the intent of PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 29.

The Project proposes one freestanding sign located at the front edge of the project site and would not result in sign clutter. The well-designed sign and high-quality materials would not lead to confusion, misleading impressions, obstruction of vision necessary for traffic safety, or otherwise endanger the public

11.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 25 safety and welfare. Installation of a freestanding sign, as noted in the preceding finding, would complement efficient operation of the proposed Project by improving convenient identification of the Project in a manner that would enhance the new commercial activities on the site. Therefore, the proposed freestanding sign would be consistent with the intent of PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 29. Upon obtaining approval of a sign permit, the proposed freestanding sign would also comply with the provisions of same.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed freestanding sign is consistent with the intent and provisions of PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 29.

3. The sign does not exceed the square footage set forth in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3).

The maximum square footage for a freestanding sign in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3) is 0.75 sf of sign area per linear foot of site frontage. The project site’s frontage is 135 feet, yielding a maximum sign area of 101.25 sf.

The freestanding sign as proposed would have a sign area of 4’-8” tall by 12’-0” wide for a total of 56 sf.

As a single-sided freestanding sign, as proposed, the freestanding sign would comply with the sign area limits in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3). In the event the applicant should propose to make the sign twosided at any point, the sign area would be 112 sf, in excess of the maximum sign area in PMC section 9-

4.2906(a)(3). In such instance, the sign area would need to be reduced to not more than 56 sf per side.

The Planning Commission has included a condition of approval to establish this sign area limitation in the event the sign is ever revised to be a two-sided sign.

Based on the foregoing, as conditioned, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed freestanding sign would not exceed the maximum square footage set forth in PMC section 9-

4.2906(a)(3).

4. The sign does not exceed a height of twenty (20′) feet above the sidewalk or paved area over which it is erected.

The freestanding sign, as proposed, would have a height of 7’-4” tall. Therefore, the proposed freestanding sign would not exceed a height of 20 feet above the sidewalk or paved area over which it would be erected.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following finding required by PMC 10-1.407(c) pertaining to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16:

1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, any Specific Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the zoning provisions.

The discussion of General Plan consistency and zoning provisions compliance contained in the findings for approval of a site development permit, above, are hereby incorporated by reference. These findings include, but are not limited to, Circulation Element Policies No. 4 and 15; Conservation Element Policy No. 1; Community Design Element Policy No. 1; Community Facilities Element Policy No. 2; Housing Element Policies No. 4.D.i and 8.A; and Land Use Element Policy No. 8; the Below Market Rate inclusionary zoning

11.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 26 requirements in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47; and, C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning Standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 11.

Because the Project is primarily a condominium subdivision of airspace, many of the subdivision standards in PMC Title 10, Chapter 1 that are designed for subdivisions of land are not applicable to the proposed subdivision. However, the proposed subdivision would meet the lot design standards required by Table 4 of PMC section 10-1.912(c); and, PMC section 10-1.909 related to the preservation of existing vegetation by preserving the southern half of the project site. The proposed subdivision would also comply with the specific requirements applicable to a vesting tentative subdivision map in PMC section 10-1.706. These include, but are not limited to a conspicuous printing on its face the words “vesting tentative map”; and, a concurrent application for all other required discretionary Project approvals which include a site development permit, use permit, parking exception, sign permit, heritage tree removal authorization, General Plan amendment, rezoning, and zoning text amendment.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed vesting tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, any Specific Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the zoning provisions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby authorizes removal of three heritage trees based on the following criteria as required by PMC Section 4-

12.05(c):

1. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, and its ability to host a plant which is parasitic to another tree which is in danger of being infested by the parasite;

2. Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property;

3. The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it;

4. The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value,scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole;

5. The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support; and

6. Good forestry practices.

The applicant has submitted an arborist report that assess the condition of the three heritage trees on the project site (Attachment F of the staff report). The arborist report determined two of the trees to be in fair condition and one tree as dead, with additional information provided in Table 4 of the staff report.

The Project proposes to remove all three heritage trees.

Tree #2 is justified for removal based on Criterion No. 1 because the tree is dead. Trees #1 and #3 are in fair condition but both are justified for removal under Criterions No. 1 and No. 2. The trees are located in proximity to proposed structures (#1) and existing utility lines (#3). They are also located at the front

11.c
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 27 and/or center of the project site and must be removed to enable economically viable use of the property.

Due to the constraints on the project site discussed in the findings for approval of a parking exception, hereby incorporated by reference, development must be clustered in the front half of the project site in order to preserve existing resources in the rear half of the project site.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a conclusion that heritage tree removal is justified based on the criteria in PMC section 4-12.05(c).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby finds as required by Government Code Section 65402 that the transfer of a portion of the City-owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) would be consistent with the General Plan, as follows:

1. The project site, without a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive, would be approximately 80 feet wide. The City-owned parcel to be purchased by the applicant would add another 55 feet to the width of the project site, for a total of approximately 135 feet in width. As noted in the discussion of the finding for approval of a parking exception, hereby incorporated by reference, the project site faces practical constraints to development related primarily to the desire to preserve existing biological resources on the rear (southern) half of the project site.

Therefore, acquisition of the City-owned parcel is necessary to enable the Project in its current configuration.

2. The Project, as proposed, would be consistent with several policies in the General Plan as noted in the discussion of findings for approval of a site development permit, hereby incorporated by reference. The City’s sale of the parcel in question, by expanding the developable area of the project site in locations with fewer sensitive biological resources, would specifically advance General Plan policies with broader City benefit, including but not limited to the following:

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
• Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation.

By sale of a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive, the applicant would be able to construct an appropriate in-fill development Project on the project site in a manner that would preserve biological resources on the southern half of the project site.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
• Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

As discussed in the immediately preceding General Plan policy, the sale of a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive would enable the applicant to construct an appropriate in-fill development Project on the project site in a manner that would preserve biological resources including but not limited to native Arroyo Willow trees on the southern half of the project site.

11.c
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 28 COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT
• Policy No. 2: Maintain and improve the present level of City services.

The sale of the City-owned parcel, as an integral component of the development agreement negotiations, would result in a public benefit to the City in the form of enhanced accessibility to the Pacifica Community Center from construction of a new passenger dropoff point by the Center’s front door and the addition of 17 new off-street parking spaces.

Additionally, the development agreement would add new landscaping for the Community Center improving the exterior appearance.

HOUSING ELEMENT
• Policy No. 4.D.i: Prioritize in-fill residential development.

Policy No. 8.A: Prioritize mixed-use residential development on in-fill sites.

By sale of a portion of the City-owned parcel at 540 Crespi Drive, the applicant would be able to construct an appropriate in-fill mixed-use commercial and residential development Project on the project site in a manner that would preserve biological resources on the southern half of the project site.

Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient information to support a finding that transfer of the City-owned parcel would be consistent with the General Plan, including not limited to policies in the Circulation, Conservation, Community Facilities, and Housing Elements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby recommends City Council adoption of ordinances to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21, Rezoning RZ-194-16, and Text Amendment TA-116-19, and City Council adoption of a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19 (“Legislative Approvals”); and approves Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization (“Development Permits”), subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this resolution and the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit B to this resolution. As set forth in the conditions, the Development Permits shall have no force or effect until, and their terms of approval shall begin on, latest effective date of any of the Legislative Approvals.
* * * * *

11.c
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 29 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2022.

AYES, Commissioners: BERMAN, DOMURAT, FERGUSON, GODWIN, LEAL, NIBBELIN

NOES, Commissioners: N/A
ABSENT, Commissioners: N/A
ABSTAIN, Commissioners: HAUSER
_____________________________
John Nibbelin, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _____________________________ Tina Wehrmeister, Planning Director/ Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney Assistant City Manager

11.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of

EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004 – Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 3,165 square feet (sf) of ground floor commercial space in Building A, three one-bedroom residential units in Building A, seven two-bedroom townhouses in Building B, and nine two-bedroom town houses in Building C on a 72,984 sf undeveloped lot at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “540 & 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044” dated April 27, 2021 except as modified by the following conditions.

2. The Applicant shall incorporate all mitigation measures as detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

3. The date of final determination on Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233- 16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization (the “Development Permits”) shall be the later of the effective date of any future resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19 and any future ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21, Rezoning RZ-194-16, and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 (collectively the “Legislative Approvals”). The Development Permits shall have no force or effect until, and their terms of approval shall begin on, latest effective date of any of the Legislative Approvals.

4. Except as otherwise provided in Development Agreement DA-4-21, consistent with section 65863.9 of the Government Code regulating expiration dates of local agency permits issued in conjunction with a vesting tentative subdivision map, and consistent with section 10-1.411 of the Pacifica Municipal Code governing expiration of vesting tentative subdivision maps for five or more parcels, the vesting tentative subdivision map and related development permits are valid for a period of 24 months from the date of final determination. If the final subdivision map is not recorded within such period of time, the approvals shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the vesting tentative map in the manner required by section 10-1.412 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. Any extension of the term of the vesting tentative map shall be deemed also to extend the term of the related development permits.

5. Except as otherwise provided in Development Agreement DA-4-21, the development permits approved in conjunction with the vesting tentative subdivision map shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of recordation of the final subdivision map. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval(s) shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Planning Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Planning Director may administratively grant a single, one year extension provided, in the Planning

11.c
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-2
Director’s sole discretion, the circumstances considered during the initial Project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one year extension.

In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the vesting tentative subdivision map or development permits, the expiration of the vesting tentative subdivision map and related development permits may be tolled during the pendency of such litigation as provided in state law, including but not limited to section 66452.6(c) of the Government Code.

6. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

7. The approval letter issued by the City, all conditions of approval attached thereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit or grading permit application.

8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

9. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any commercial or residential unit on the site, Applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a master sign program (MSP) from the Planning Director which master sign program shall include all signage proposed on the Project site. The MSP shall include all types of signs to be installed on the Project site, including but not limited to the freestanding sign, individual commercial tenant signs, address and unit numbering.

10. Exterior lighting shall include buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise its Project to include no less than two bicycle parking spaces onsite designed to comply with the standards contained in PMC section 9-

4.2822, and further subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director.

11.c
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-3

12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall ensure the Project complies with all requirements of the Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards contained in Article 24 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, including but not limited to, the following:

A. The interior layout of each garage in Building B and Building C shall be modified to provide a storage with a minimum interior dimension of 3’-6” by 6’-0”; and B. Building A shall be modified to provide an enclosed, weatherproofed and lockable private storage space of at least 200 cubic feet for each of the three one-bedroom units.

13. All trash and recycling materials, if stored outdoors, shall be fully contained, and screened from public view within an approved enclosure. The enclosure design shall be consistent with the adjacent and/or surrounding building materials, and shall be sufficient in size to contain all trash and recycling materials, as may be recommended by Recology of the Coast. Trash enclosure and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide construction details for the enclosure for review and approval by the Planning Director.

14. All transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berming, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall demonstrate that the two lots on the Project site have been merged into a single lot to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

16. All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashing, and conduits shall be painted to match the colors of adjacent building surfaces. In addition, any mechanical or other equipment such as HVAC attached to or protruding from the building shall be appropriately housed and/or screened to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

17. Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size, and location of plant materials, as well as the irrigation system. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native, and shall include an appropriate mix of plantings including. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.

11.c
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-4

19. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the Project, the Applicant shall prepare and record with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Equitable Servitudes which shall run with the land and be binding on all future owners and occupants of each of the residential units within the subject property and their successors, heirs, and assigns, and shall be approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and Planning Director, which accomplishes the following:

A. The Declaration shall be binding upon each of the owners of each of the residential units on the subject property and their heirs, successors and assigns.

B. There shall be an Owners Association to manage the Project. The Declaration shall specify that the Owners Association shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of exterior lighting, parks, common areas, utility areas within common areas, parking, landscaping, building signage, sanitary sewer, stormwater facilities, open space, and other features of the Project.

C. The Declaration shall establish standards and guidelines for the maintenance, repair and replacement, where applicable, exterior lighting, park, parking, landscaping, signage, sanitary sewer, stormwater facilities, and other features and utility facilities within the common areas, to the satisfaction of the City of Pacifica. Maintenance of the stormwater facilities located within the property shall be the responsibility of the applicant and property owners.

D. The Declaration shall establish a mechanism for placing assessments against the owners of all condominium units within the subject property for the purpose of financing the maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas, parking, landscaping and building signage. The assessments shall be apportioned in an equitable manner.

E. The assessments shall be made, work shall be contracted for, and funds shall be disbursed by such person (“Agent”) as may be delegated from time to time, by the Owners Association. The applicant or his/her successor in interest shall act as the Agent as long as he/she owns at least two of the units on the subject property.

F. Any assessment not paid when due shall become a lien against the unit of the nonpaying owner, which lien may be foreclosed by the Agent.

G. Communication. Each owner is responsible for, and shall agree to, furnish to each new tenant a copy of the CC&Rs prior to execution of the lease or purchase agreement for each unit.

H. The Declaration shall include procedures for designating a Project “Manager” if different than the “Agent” who shall at all times be responsible for security and/or maintenance of the overall Project. At all times the Manager shall provide his/her name and current phone number to the Planning Director, including any changes thereto.

I. The Declaration shall include a provision that the provisions relating to this condition shall not be amended without prior approval in writing from the City of Pacifica.

J. The Declaration shall specify that the owners of each of the condominium units on the property shall comply with all other applicable conditions of approval for the Project.

K. The Declaration shall specify that in no way shall the appearance of any building or premises be so altered, or the conduct of the occupancy within the building or premises be such that the residential units may be reasonably recognized as serving other than a purely residential use by virtue of color, materials, construction, lighting, noise, vibration, or the like, without prior written approval of the Planning Director.

L. The Declaration shall include the provisions required to be included in the CC&Rs by the

11.c
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-5
MMRP. The MMRP requires provisions to be included in the CC&Rs whenever a mitigation measure requires the owners, Owners Association or other similar entity to undertake maintenance or other obligations after occupancy of the Project.

M. The Declaration shall name the City of Pacifica as a third-party beneficiary with the right (but not the obligation) to enforce the provisions required to be included in the CC&Rs by the MMRP or these conditions of approval.

20. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, Applicant shall enter into a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Unit Affordability Agreement (“Affordability Agreement”) with City, in a form approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney. The Affordability Agreement shall provide, among other things that: (1) Applicant will develop and sell three of its units as BMR units at an affordable housing cost to eligible households; (2) the BMR units shall meet the size and design requirements set forth in Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.4705; (3) construction and sale of the BMR units shall be phased with the development of the market rate units to ensure that the BMR units are timely developed and sold; (4) purchasers of the BMR units will be required to enter into and execute Resale Restriction Agreements and other documents ensuring the longterm affordability of the BMR units for no less than 45 years; (5) the development and sale of the BMR units otherwise meets the requirements of Article 47 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program”) and the terms of the Development Agreement; and (6) Applicant will be responsible for the City’s administrative costs associated with compliance with the Affordability Agreement. The Affordability Agreement must be recorded against the property prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the Final Map.

21. Prior to commencement of any grading, building, or other construction activity, the Applicant shall install a 10‐foot‐tall temporary sound wall on the Project site along the 580 Crespi Drive building façade. The sound wall would consist of stacked hay bales, ¾” plywood, or acoustical curtains with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 22. The Applicant shall submit the details of the proposed sound wall in conjunction with any application for a building or grading permit, and the details of the proposed sound wall shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director.

22. In the event the Applicant should desire to construct the proposed freestanding sign with two sign faces as opposed to the currently proposed single sign face, the freestanding sign shall be revised to comply with the maximum sign area limits in PMC section 9-4.2906(a)(3). Based on the 135- foot frontage of the Project site, the maximum sign area for the freestanding sign shall be 101.25 sf. Consistent with PMC section 9-4.2908(c), both sides of the freestanding sign shall count towards the maximum allowed sign area. The final design of the freestanding sign shall be indicated in the master sign program submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit for the freestanding sign.

23. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.

Building Division of the Planning Department

24. The Project shall require review and approval of a grading permit and a building permit prior to commencement of any construction activities.

11.c
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-6

25. Each unit shall be required to provide separate energy calculations and independent solar systems.

Engineering Division of Public Works Department

26. The City Council of the City of Pacifica will need to accept offer of easements for Emergency Vehicle Access and Public Use Access prior to the filling of a final subdivision map.

27. Should the Applicant desire to record the final map prior to completion and acceptance of improvements, Applicant may enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Pacifica to construct all on-site and off-site improvements, as depicted on the approved Tentative Map and any conditions and mitigations imposed on this Project, prior to approval of the final map and all necessary fees and bonds associated with this agreement, including applicable Park Land Dedication fees as determined by the Planning Director, shall be paid by the applicant.

28. Should the Applicant desire to record the final map prior to completion and acceptance of improvements, a bond in an amount determined by the City Engineer must be provided. The bond maybe in the form of cash, instrument of credit or surety bond. In addition, an improvement agreement shall be executed to guarantee that the work will be done in accordance with the approved plans.

29. Prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but not limited to:

A. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.

B. Plan, profile and cross sections of the proposed driveways. The proposed driveway shall not exceed the maximum grade of 18 percent.

C. Curb ramps on both sides of the driveways.

D. Design Geotechnical Report analyzing the proposed on-site and off-site improvements including but not limited to the driveways and retaining wall.

E. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

30. Prior to approval of the final map, the Applicant shall verify that all public and private utilities have been provided to serve the subdivision. Approvals and/or agreements shall be obtained from all utilities.

31. The form, contents, submittal, approval, and filling of a final subdivision map (or final parcel map) shall conform to the following:

A. Surveys required. An accurate and complete survey of the land to be subdivided shall be made by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. All monuments, property lines, and center lines of streets, alleys, and easements adjoining or within the subdivision shall be tied into the survey. The allowable error of closure on any portion of the parcel map shall not exceed 1/10,000 for field closures and 1/20,000 for calculated closures.

11.c
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-7
B. Forms and contents. The form and contents of the parcel map shall conform to the final map form and contents requirements of Pacifica Municipal Code Section 10-1.504 and Pacifica Municipal Code Section 10-1.505 of, except for subsection (6) of subsection (c).

C. Preliminary submittal. The subdivider shall submit prints of the parcel map to the City Engineer for checking. The preliminary prints shall be accompanied by copies of the data, plans, reports, and documents required for final maps by Pacifica Municipal Code Section 10-1.506.

D. Review and approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the parcel map, and the subdivider's engineer shall make corrections and/or additions until the map is acceptable to the City Engineer. The subdivider's engineer shall submit the original tracing of the map, corrected to its final form and signed by all parties required to execute the certificates on the map, to the City Engineer. The City Clerk or his or her authorized agent shall transmit the approved parcel map directly to the County Clerk for transmittal to the County Recorder.

32. City Council approval shall be required prior to recording a final map.

Wastewater Division of Public Works Department

33. Irrigation and sprinkler systems shall not drain into sanitary sewer system.

34. Trash enclosure shall be shown on plans to have a roof and berm around enclosure to prevent rainwater from entering the sanitary sewer system.

35. All sanitary sewer system connections shall be shown on the building permit plans to connect to the main line sewer on Crespi Drive.

North County Fire Authority (NCFA)

36. Fire sprinkler system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

37. Approval of Alternative Methods and Materials shall be required for the Project. Applicant shall submit a request form and fee for NCFA review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide fire flow information per California Fire Code (CFC), Appendix B.

39. Fire extinguishing/hood system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

40. Fire alarm system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

41. Fire alarm system shall be monitored, per CFC.

42. Key Box is required. Apply for approved hardware at NCFA Administration.

43. Portable fire extinguishers(s) are required. Mount fire extinguishers 3-5 feet above floor.

11.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-004
570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2022
A-8

44. Illuminated address identification is required.

45. Utility identification is required.

46. Doors shall be easily openable in one motion without special knowledge, key or effort per California Building Code (CBC). Use of thumb operated deadbolts prohibited unless integrated with latch.

47. Illuminated exit signs and emergency egress illumination is required.

48. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief that Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is provided as required by CFC Section 510.

Added by Planning Commission on March 7, 2022

49. Upon final map approval, the Applicant shall provide written notice to the adjacent single-family residential property owner at the point of connection for the emergency overflow shown on Sheet TM-3 not less than 90 days prior to commencing the improvement located in the City’s stormdrain easement, and an additional written follow-up notification not less than 48 hours prior to commencement of the work. The improvement may proceed with the improvement design as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer upon the Applicant’s fulfillment of this obligation.

50. The required heritage tree replacement ratio shall be 3:1 resulting in a minimum of nine replacement trees for the three heritage trees removed by the Project. Related to the 27 Arroyo willow plantings, not less than 20 percent of the replacement trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size.

51. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise the Project plans to include a raised walkway structure along the southern boundary of the developed portion of the Project site that projects into the wetlands area at the southern half of the site. The additional raised walkway structure shall connect to the proposed deck walkway included on Sheet A-1.14 of the Project plans in order to provide additional wetlands interpretive opportunities and usable open space for Project occupants. The design and materials of this additional raised walkway shall be consistent with the design and materials of the deck walkway included on Sheet A-1.14 of the Project plans, and shall further be a raised and restricted boardwalk path that prevents pedestrians from existing into the wetlands. The precise location, extent, design, and materials of the additional raised walkway structure shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. ***END***

11.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of

EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (“MMRP”) OF THE “570 CRESPI DRIVE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY,” DATED DECEMBER 2021, CEQA CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021120126.

11.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-006 - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: March 7, 2022 FILE: DA-4-21
GPA -96-19
RZ-194-16
TA-116-19
PSD-811-16
UP-76-16
PE-183-19
S-129-19
SUB-233-16
Heritage Tree Removal Authorization
ITEM: 1
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Pacifica Tribune on February 23, 2022, and mailed to 332 surrounding property owners and occupants.

APPLICANT &
OWNER:

Brendan A. and Justin C. Murphy
308 El Portal Ave.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) - West Linda Mar.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: File No. 2016-004 – Construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixed-use development consisting of three buildings with 19 residential units, including three Below Market Rate (BMR) units and 3,165 sf of commercial use, and amendment of the General Plan and Pacifica Municipal Code to allow stand-alone residential buildings as part of a mixed-use project in the Commercial land use designation and C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, and rezoning of the project site from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district. The residential units consist of three one-bedroom single level units and 16 two-bedroom three level units. The onebedroom units would be on the second level above one level of commercial in Building A abutting Crespi Drive. The 16 townhouses would be constructed in Buildings B and C behind Building A. Building B would consist of seven townhouses and Building C would consist of nine townhouses. The Applicant owns 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) which consists of 42,763 sf of site area. The applicant seeks to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Pacifica (“City”) and intends to purchase a portion of the City owned 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) property, the location of the Pacifica Community Center, and to make certain improvements to the remainder of the City-owned 540 Crespi Drive parcel. The total project site, following the purchase of the City-owned property, would be 72,984 sf (1.675 acres). 1 Packet Pg. 17

11.d
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Staff Report (omitting Attachments A, G, I, and K) - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning PC Staff Report
570 Crespi Mixed-use Project
March 7, 2022