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]
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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):
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 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.
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.
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)