Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project

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 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, 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.
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
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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:

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

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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
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***

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

Pacifica City CouncilJune 27, 2022

Pacifica City Council
June 27, 2022