Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
4. CDP-438-22 File No. 2022-012 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program (Program) parking spaces (30’ by 10’. The on-street parking space would be reserved for use by a Program participant(s) living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating restroom facilities for a limited period of time on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW) located east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection..
Recommended CEQA Action: Class 1 and Class 4 Categorical Exemptions, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Chair Berman asked, if anyone needs to recuse, if they recuse before she introduces the item or after.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that after she reads the item and introduces it, then the recusing decision makers would announce their conflicts.
Chair Berman then read the item.
Commissioner Leal stated that he needs to recuse himself from the item due to ownership of real property in the direct vicinity of this project location, and as it is the last item on the agenda, he will see them at the next meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he also needs to recuse himself from this item due to owning real property in the vicinity, and he will also be leaving.
Chair Berman asked if they can hear the staff report now or do they wait until they have left.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that departure would be preferred.
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report. She stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista was present as the applicant, Police Chief Steidle was present, and Executive Director Rees of PRC was available by phone to answer questions regarding the operation of the temporary safe parking program.
Chair Berman stated she would allow the applicant to speak if he so desires.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that he is ready to answer questions but has no further presentation.
Chair Berman opened the Public Hearing and, seeing no one in the audience, asked if anyone has called in.
Senior Planner O’Connor stated that the only member they have on the phone is Director Rees.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock reiterated that Planning Commission received a written public comment this evening applicable to this public hearing and also received a written public comment in advance of this public hearing that staff shared with the Commission and provided it in the rear of the Council Chamber as well as on the Planning Commission webpage.
Chair Berman closed Public Hearing.
Commissioner Wright assumed all previous principles discussed in the last two items still apply.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, if his comment is referring to litigation related to this, these permits are being considered as part of a settlement agreement and there is a May 29 deadline for the city to obtain coastal development permits to allow operation of these spaces, yes.
Commissioner Domurat thought that, as part of the condition for approval, they would assume the city would do due diligence in looking at markings of the roadway, making sure there is enough back up space. He stated that, while they don’t have a picture, it appears there will be no parking allowed in front of where that eighth RV space so it shouldn’t be a problem. He wanted to make sure that the appropriate street markings and signage is adequate for the safety for that region.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they will look at that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that staff can help prepare a condition of approval that addressed an appropriate buffer space, perhaps to the city engineer’s discretion, of not less than the minimum width at the rear of the space if the Commission so desires.
Chair Berman thought so, adding that staff has been very good at that. She had some concerns at this location. She stated that, prior to this meeting, the Commission received a comment from the North Coast Water District, and she wondered if staff can elaborate on the discussion that Public Works has had with the property owners, as it seemed they were opposed to this location for this program.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the property owner does not own the parking location, as the parking location proposed is in the public right-of-way and is under the domain of the City of Pacifica. He stated that there has been a comment from an adjacent property owner, the North Coast County Water District, who stated in their comment letter various concerns about the potential location of a safe parking program and space in this location. He stated that the Water District has been involved and communicating with the city for some period in relation to a potential parking space for oversized vehicles on the street adjacent to their property. He stated that the city has considered those concerns and similar types of concerns from many different property owners in the city, including residents, and it is determined that it is in the city’s best interest to approve a program that allows for on-street parking of these types of vehicles in locations enumerated by City Council. As it relates to the proximity of these types of parking spaces to critical government facilities, it is important to note that outside of the coastal zone, even though Planning Commission won’t see those for a permitting action, the city has authorized a number of these spaces immediately adjacent to its property at the corporation yard at 151 Milagra and they are not asking people to do something entirely different than what the city is willing to do itself to insure a safe program and implementation of a safe parking program.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Chair Berman understands that the parking program is proposed in the city right-of-way, and asked if the property owner was responsible to maintain the frontage of their property which would be the sidewalk, i.e., if the Water District owned the parking lot that they used, would they be responsible for typical neighborly maintenance of their property frontage which is the sidewalk.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that, under the streets and highways code, property owners are responsible for maintenance of the adjacent sidewalk improvement, including replacement if or when it constitutes a safety hazard, but he didn’t know if any special legal considerations apply when the adjacent property owner is another public agency. He thought, as a general rule for regular private property owners, they have a legal obligation to maintain those adjacent sidewalk improvements.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma was not aware of any different obligations on public agencies.
Chair Berman asked if it ends at the curb or expand into the gutter.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it is sidewalk, curb and gutter in the codes.
Chair Berman stated, if the adjacent property owner is actively opposed to this location, she has concerns with imposing on their requirement to maintain the sidewalk. She realized that the vehicles won’t be parked on the sidewalk but the road is pretty narrow even without a large vehicle parked there, and she has concerns with the opposition from the adjacent property owner.
She stated that they asked questions with the previous items regarding roadway width and she understands that there is 20 feet effectively from the curb to the center line and that would allow for a 10-foot parking spot and a 10-foot travel lane, but she thought it was tight there, especially with cars turning and if you have large vehicles and the side mirrors are often wider than 8.5 feet.
She just wanted to voice her concerns with this location as additionally to it being one of the gateways to our downtown. She stated that we and staff are working hard on the Sharp Park Specific Plan and they want to evolve the Sharp Park area and cars traveling from Half Moon Bay to visit Sharp Park will exit at this point and the first thing they see will be oversized vehicles.
Vice Chair Hauser concurred with Chair Berman, adding that part of why she feels this is a tough spot to do this is that, in the letter from the North Coast County Water District, they stated that they are worried about reduced access to emergency response facilities as district employees are critical to emergency response and the headquarters serves as an emergency operation center. In the event of an emergency, the district headquarters becomes a command center. She stated that the letter went on, and it is part of the public record, but she went to the site after seeing the letter and the location of the oversized vehicle parking space proposed is close to both the sliding gate along Francisco as well as the sliding gate across from where Stuckey’s was, stating that she doesn’t remember what the store front is now. She stated that, while there, she saw four or five different vehicles within 20 minutes actively coming and going and she didn’t know to do with the obligations they have for May 29, but she would concur that this is not a spot that she would feel ready to support at this time.
Commissioner Domurat thought he was just making an assumption that, in the development of this plan, these locations were all vetted with everyone in the community, and asked if city and the water district as the owners of the area were aware that this was going to happen a year ago.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
He stated that they are that point where they probably have to approve it anyway but it may be one where they look at it in six months or a year from now, and if its not working, they look at moving it. He didn’t think they were to vote on whether the location is appropriate or not, as it is. If it is a safety issue, they can comment on it, but he asked if the location was already locked in.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Council has identified this as an appropriate location for the safe parking program.
Commissioner Domurat thought someone could appeal the Council’s decision.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they can appeal the Commission’s action on this item, whatever the ultimate action will be. He stated that, regarding his question on safety, safety is relevant and within the Commission discretion. He stated that, specifically, they should be considering the findings for approval of a coastal development permit and they relate primarily to local coastal program policies and the consistency of this application with those policies. He then referred to Vice Chair Hauser’s concerns, stating that this application is for one space and when they are considering the location of the rolling gate and access for the district’s vehicles, this space would be some distance, perhaps 30 or 40 feet away from that rolling gate on Francisco Blvd. would be located and it is not clear to him what direct impact the operation of this space would have on the district’s ability to access its property in the event of an emergency.
Commissioner Wright assumed Public Works considers the blocking of any sidelines for any turning vehicles so they don’t have any children getting run over by bicycles, as with these large vehicles it is often hard to see. He assumed they took that all into consideration when thinking about this spot.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they looked at high volumes and that was part of their criteria that they look at for OSVs.
Commissioner Godwin asked if they have the flexibility of not implementing this space and going back to the Ace hardware site and the parking lot and adding a space there. He knew it would not make a lot of people happy. He reiterated if they had the flexibility to say one of these does not need to be done and they add to somewhere else so they get to the legally required number of spaces, or is that something where they don’t have an option.
Commissioner Wright thought it would be up to the applicant.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Commission would not be able to revisit its prior action on the San Pedro Avenue site, given that it took a vote and they decided on that application. Regarding this location, he stated that Council has approved this location and it is the Commission’s obligation to determine whether the findings can be made for approval of a coastal development permit, but not in the Commission’s discretion to determine whether the space should be in the program or not..
Vice Chair Hauser referred to Commissioner Domurat’s question, and stated that the Water District said that they had been voicing concerns since July 2020 and they continue to do so. She didn’t think this was new.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock thanked her for her comment, adding that he failed to follow up on Commissioner Domurat’s point in that regard. He stated that he cannot speak for what the Water District’s understanding is or was at any particular point in time. He is aware that they had multiple communications with the city, including with the City Manager. They reflected their perspective on some of those communications in the letter, but it was not clear to him that they had a full understand of the evolution of this issue. He stated, as he mentioned in one of the earlier public hearings, Council went through evaluation of a number of options to respond to the increasing number of oversized vehicles being parked on city streets and they considered private property programs, public right-of-way program and didn’t want either of those programs and initiated and enacted an oversize vehicle parking ordinance to strictly regulate the parking of such vehicles and then the city was sued. He stated it was his impression that the understanding conveyed in the Water District’s letter seems to reflect a conversation with the city that reflected an earlier point in time prior to the filing of the litigation. The understanding they had that no such space on the street was being considered by the city seemed to have been true at that point in time, and it seems they may not have been aware of the evolution of the issues in the city, including the litigation. He stated that it may have come to their attention relatively recently that spaces on the street were back in consideration by the city. He stated that was his best understanding of the timeline and chronology of the various points.
Commissioner Wright asked if they can make it a condition that Public Works do their best to address the concerns of the property owner in implementing this parking space somewhat in that location or is too general.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they would need to hear more about what steps they think the city could take to address the commenter’s concern.
Commissioner Wright thought they could move it forward or backwards ten feet to make something easier for them.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he thought the space proposed currently abuts the southerly red curb no parking zone and to shift it any place else could jeopardize additional on street parking which he thought was also a concern for the water district and the customers and employees coming to the customer service component of their operations at that site. He stated that there was mention made of an application the Water District has filed with the city for a significant project on their site to demolish one of the existing buildings and to rehabilitate another portion of the building. He stated, if and when that project is approved by the city, there will be a considerable period of construction activity which has certain impacts potentially on occupants of the space and would also mean there was no direct impact on the water district’s operations which was one the concerns they had. He didn’t know if they could have it both ways with respect to the comments about impacts of their operations, as well as impact during the construction phase, and the Commission may want to consider that. He stated that it is speculative as to whether that project will be approved and what the timeline is for that. At this point in time, the application has not been processed and decided by the city, but there are a number of considerations to be made about how this space may actually affect the District’s operation in the way stated in the letter. He added that the program was for three years as contemplated by Council, and not a permanent program as it is intended at this time. As it relates to the long-term operations by the Water District, if and when their new project is approved and constructed, it was likely that there will be very limited overlap between this temporary safe program and their ongoing operations of their renovated facility.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Chair Berman asked, jumping back to their purview and the process of this program and the rock and a hard place that the Commission is in, if it was correct to say that there is currently no restriction for an oversize vehicle on this stretch of Francisco Blvd.
Police Chief Steidle believes that is correct that there is no restriction in that area.
Commissioner Godwin asked if that includes height restriction, as some of these vehicles can be quite tall.
Police Chief Steidle stated that there is no height restriction for parking in general parking areas.
Commissioner Godwin concluded that he could park a 14-foot tall RV there even thought it might affect some sight lines and that would be fine.
Chair Berman understood that the stopping site distance, if it is beyond a normal car height, would not be a concern for her that additional sight distance would be impaired. She thought the red-painted curb at the corner was probably implemented because that was probably the corner sight distance like the sight line and she didn’t have a concern with the height of the vehicle. She referred to her previous question on the existing condition on the road that oversized vehicles are technically allowed because they are not dis-allowed, stating she didn’t recall see oversized vehicles parking there, and she asked Police Chief Steidle, as his team is around there more often, if it was common to see oversized vehicles parked there.
Police Chief Steidle stated that, at this location, he thinks he has only seen one once, and he does travel that path on a daily basis.
Chair Berman stated that currently, without this program implemented, people who own oversized vehicles don’t choose to park there and, if the Commission and the adjacent property owner had concerns with designating for oversized vehicles to park there, she didn’t think it is an appropriate spot. She knows it is not in their purview to choose a different spot and not in their purview to go back to a previous item and add spots to it. She asked staff, if any of the locations where their locations will not come through the Commission, whether it was possible to add any spots to those. As this is one spot, she asked if they could add one spot to one of the locations designated by Council that they are not reviewing at this time.
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked what she means by “can we add”.
Chair Berman stated that, given that the city needs to provide 13 OSV parking spots with this program, if Planning Commission happened to deny this one spot, she understood that Council can make their own decision and supersede the Commission’s decision, but she asked, if Council does entertain the comments they provided for this spot, if they are able to find another location for this one spot. She was trying to make the program work as they have to and they need to have 13 spots. If this spot was determined not appropriate, she asked if the city could comply with their legal requirement to provide 13 spots.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that, if the Commission were to deny this permit and kick it back to Council and Council ended also denying it in agreement with the Commission, the legal effect of that would be to out of compliance with the settlement agreement. She stated that the Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
settlement agreement has specified the spaces even for the ones that are not before the Planning Commission and those spaces have also been set forth.
Chair Berman concluded that the location of these spaces were a part of the legal agreement.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there are some conditions of approval from prior public hearings that may be relevant for the Commission in the event that a motion is made on this item. He then briefly read them, adding that there are only two that he has seen applicable to carry over. The first is, “the program space shall have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the program space, 10 foot x 30 foot, not less than five feet in depth and the full width of the program space of 10 feet with the exact depth at the discretion of the city engineer.” The other is, “all program participants shall comply with all Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the program spaces.” PW Dep. Director Bautista asked clarification, as in the other conditions they ask for a back up buffer and in this case, did they want to have that as well.
Chair Berman thought that was included.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the condition he read would have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the program space as the backup buffer given that the front of the space already had a red-curb no parking zone. He didn’t specify that additional buffer.
Vice Chair Hauser didn’t want to complicate matters but she felt like they were being asked to choose between safety and complying with the lawsuit and on this one she is torn. She thought they have a way of doing it and she won’t make a difference, but she wanted to be clear that she didn’t think she could support this one.
Chair Berman shares the same concerns and personally didn’t support this location.
Commissioner Wright still thinks they don’t have the benefit of all the considerations that Council went through, as they may have gone through a myriad of other options and this was the least of many other worse evils. He stated that they don’t have that benefit and it is hard for them to second guess their work from here without having any input from them, and none of them are present to give them any of that information.
Chair Berman listened to quite a few of the Council’s meetings on this item and she knows that, for over a year. There was a task force, and City Council did put a lot of time and consideration with long meetings similar to this meeting, and she appreciated all the time they have put into that. She stated that they are in a tough situation.
Commissioner Wright didn’t feel in a position to make a motion or second it, but if he is forced to vote, he will.
Commissioner Godwin thought that, after a lot of work, this is probably among the least bad choices and that is probably about the best they can say for it. He thought he could support the motion if it is made.
Chair Berman asked if he was willing to make the motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Commissioner Godwin stated if he gets some help.
Chair Berman stated that, as she is taking an informal read, it is possible that this might not pass.
She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock where they may go from here if the majority of the Commission may not support this item. She asked if they should have someone make a motion for the item and then vote or do they make a motion to deny.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Commission has a few options. They can make a motion to approve, and if that passes, they are done. He stated that, if it does not pass, that is not tantamount to a denial, and whatever motion is made, they will need to have an affirmative vote in order to have affect. He asked that the Commission can test a vote for an approval or denial at its discretion, depending on the motion and the second. He stated that the Commission could continue the item if it needed further specific analysis. He is not hearing what an additional analysis could be as it sounds to him like an instinctive reaction to the space and its proximity to a key property adjacent to the space, and no amount of analysis will change the nature of that relationship, so a continuance may not be the best option, but it is one of the options if there is something staff needs to analyze. He stated that, under the circumstances, he didn’t know how the Commission is weighing, other than at least two Commissioners seem reluctant to approve the space at this point. He stated that their normal recommendation to the Planning Commission is, in the event that there is a denial, to please continue it, stating specific reasons and allow staff to prepare a denial resolution supported by the weight of the evidence. He stated that, in this case, due to the time constraints and the fact that the city is the applicant and litigation is a low risk from the applicant in this instance, they would ask them, in the interest of time, to make a definitive action at this meeting, whichever route it goes. He stated that, should it be a denial, they state as much evidence as they can to support that action as to why the findings cannot be made for this particular space.
Commissioner Wright asked if it was possible to make it a condition that they ask that they try to negotiate with plaintiff to move this one spot, like a temporary approval and hopefully the plaintiff will work with them and Council to find what they would find to be a more suitable spot.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma asked if that was to renegotiate the settlement agreement that Council approved, not to add a condition of approval.
Commissioner Wright stated that they ask to see if there is any feasibility to that and they at least try. He asked if that would put the litigation in jeopardy if they did that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they have fielded this question in a number of different forms. He was going to try to stick to the same answer. The spaces have been approved by City Council and the Commission can decide whether the space is appropriate or not, with respect to the findings required for approval of the permit. He felt that to push for alternative locations is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission, and he thought it was a yeah or nay in this space but not looking beyond this space to some other potential space, given Council’s action and the relationship to the settlement agreement.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that it is more of a reaction to what Commissioner Wright said and that, based on Acting Planning Director Murdock’s response, she thinks she will withdraw her light.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Chair Berman asked Commissioner Godwin if he would like to give a motion.
Commissioner Godwin moved that the Planning Commission APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 subject to the conditions they have established for one on-street temporary site parking space on the left side of Francisco Blvd. public right-of-way, east of 2400 Francisco Blvd.
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked if the motion includes the two conditions of approval that he read.
Commissioner Godwin stated including the conditions of approval as read by Acting Planning Director Murdock.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thanked him for the clarification.
Chair Berman asked if there was a second.
Commissioner Domurat seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Hauser asked if they were three to two.
Chair Berman stated that she is predicting that it may turn into a 3-2.
Commissioner Wright asked if he could have a minute.
Chair Berman stated that they have a motion and a second in favor of the project.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that an affirmative vote by the majority of the Commission will conclude this item with an approval and failure of the motion to pass with a majority in favor will result in the status quo where they don’t have a decision or resolution and the Commission would need to continue to deliberate until it reached a majority in support of some motion on the item.
Vice Chair Hauser asked if 3-2 a majority or do they need four.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, for a permit action such as this, it is a majority of the Commissioners present, so in this case, 3-2 passes the item. He stated that for legislative items, a majority of the entire Commission, four, needs to be in favor regardless of the number present.
Vice Chair Hauser concluded that, in this instance, 3 would still pass the motion.
Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Chair Berman stated that they have a motion and a second.
The motion failed 2-3.
Ayes: Commissioners Domurat and Godwin
Nays: Commissioners Hauser, Wright and Chair Berman.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Chair Berman asked if there was any other item they need to touch on for this.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated not with respect to the motion that failed, but the Commission still needs to deliberate and reach a majority on an act ion to take.
Commissioner Domurat thought it was up to the three noes to figure out what it is that they can say. He stated that his point was that, in three years, Sharp Park is not going to get developed in three years, and in three years they are not going to be there. He stated that it is a short term three years which is why he voted yes.
Senior Planner O’Connor asked Commissioner Domurat if he could speak into the microphone.
Commissioner Domurat asked if they were allowed to deliberate on this.
Chair Berman stated that they are now in deliberation again.
Commissioner Domurat stated that the way he voted is that this is a three-year program and in three years, if this area is not a go, then they kill it in three years and make sure that the community is aware of what it does. He stated that they have analyzed the data, made sure it is a location that they don’t want for the future. For now, he stated that it was in a location that can provide data to the lessons learned and how well it would function. He stated that, as the community of Sharp Park develops further, it could be a location that they would not consider for the future.
Chair Berman asked Commissioner Godwin who was the other yes vote if he had anything to add to Commissioner Domurat’s statement.
Commissioner Godwin stated not significantly, as he thought it seems to be least bad option and the best way for the city to proceed. He stated that, in three years, a lot can happen and a lot of things that came before them that have been proposed and haven’t been built. He stated that it wasn’t clear that this is definitely a problem now, but if it is in the future, it can be dealt with then when it is a real problem as opposed to a potential problem.
Vice Chair Hauser stated she was always concerned when an emergency responder says that this is a problem for emergency response and she didn’t know any of the ins and outs of the Water District’s organization but it was a strong letter. She stated that, in the interest of finding some sort of solution, as the motion failed to pass, she wondered if this would be the opportunity to provide some sort of limited two-month reporting back to Council from North Coast County Water District and take Planning Commission out of it to see where things stand and leave it between the emergency responder and City Council. She didn’t know if that was a possibility but she feels like she can support something that would give people who are responsible for sustaining the safety of our water, especially in a drought, and they are responding to broken pipes, etc. She thought that would provide a level of comfort that she would need.
Chair Berman agrees with Vice Chair Hauser brought up. She asked if it was possible to implement, as a condition of approval, some reporting requirement.
Asst. City Attorney stated a very discrete reporting requirement.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Commissioner Domurat stated that, as they deliberate, and Police Chief Steidle would be the closest one to being able to comment on the emergency access of vehicles, etc., and he asked if he would consider that an issue at this point or something they could learn about.
Police Chief Steidle stated that, on a lighter note, he has red and blue lights and he can get to wherever he needs but he admits that he doesn’t have any knowledge as to how this would affect an emergency response from the Water District. He added that, in fairness to the Water District, he didn’t know the type of equipment they have. They are emergency responders and they would be first responders to some sort of a water emergency but how they respond to it and what equipment they are pulling out of there and how an OSV parked there would affect that.
Commissioner Domurat stated that they have two access gates, one further north of where this location and one is on the corner and the big access is not even on that road.
Police Chief Steidle agreed, adding that it was his understanding that the proposed parking out there does not affect the gate.
Senior Planner O’Connor reminded them that parking does occur there now, and an emergency can happen at any time and parking can be occurring at any time there as well.
Commissioner Godwin stated that, if it was a problem, they could have had a red zone painted out in front of them.
Senior Planner O’Connor stated she was highlighting the scenario that, if there was a problem, such as 1:00 in the morning and someone could be parking along those 30-feet then and it doesn’t change the existing status.
Chair Berman stated that her concerns in regard to access aren’t so much with the water district but more so that this road feels narrow when you drive there, and there aren’t oversize vehicles that commonly park there to begin with. She stated that a lot of people take this route in this intersection so she was more concerned with accidents and cars hitting side mirror to side mirror.
She thought Commissioner Godwin is right and she has to trust that this is the lesser of many other evils so it is probably the least bad option but it doesn’t seem like a good location. She stated that they have two options. She apologized as she was tired and may not be processing correctly, but they have two options. They can keep deliberating until the project passes or they can formally provide a denial with specific aspects of why they deny.
Vice Chair Hauser asked if staff has a response.
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked for a little more time.
Vice Char Hauser stated her goal would be to leave with everybody happyish.
Acting Planning Director thanked Chair Berman for the opportunity for staff to conference over here.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Chair Berman stated that, in the meantime, they came up with a Planning Commission slogan, everyone walks away happyish.
Acting Planning Director stated that the condition of approval that they would propose for discussion purposes is as follows, “after not less than two months and not more than four months of operations, the applicant shall prepare a written operational review report summarizing operation of the program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District facility for review and consideration by the City Manager.” Vice Chair Hauser thought it was a well crafted motion and she would ask that input from the Water District be solicited without a requirement for receiving it but at least they are soliciting it and, if received, that input is also provided to the City Manager. She stated that, at that juncture, is it up to staff to implement changes or amendments as seen fit.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they suggested adding an additional sentence that says “the applicant shall confer with the North Coast County Water District to seek its input into the report.”
Vice Chair Hauser stated that, nothing to change the condition but, once the report is received by the City Manager, does the City Manager have some level of power to make adjustments.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they have heard relaying other responses at this meeting, there should be finality with respect to this space for the time being in order to comply with the settlement agreement. He stated that the city has the ultimate discretion should this space prove unsafe to discontinue its use which may have ramifications with respect to the settlement agreement but the city needs to balance those factors and take the appropriate measures to protect public health and safety. They would seriously consider any concerns that are identified with respect to the report that is contemplated here.
Commissioner Wright asked if they can make it a condition that this be the last space filled.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that currently no more spaces are contemplated in the settlement agreement. There are 13 spaces required and 13 spaces identified.
Commissioner Wright clarified that in terms of filling it with applicants, can it be the last space filled.
Chair Berman like the last space filled.
Commissioner Domurat stated that, with part of the management plan, you have to leave flexibility as you don’t know the kind of sizes of everything else.
Acting Planning Director Murdock didn’t know if Executive Director Rees is still on the line, but she had indicated in a prior public hearing that the intent of the Resource Center as the program operator was to fill all the spaces more or less simultaneously and he wasn’t sure how attempting to delay the filling of this space would affect the operations.
Commissioner Domurat stated that she reiterated that earlier.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Executive Director Rees stated that the intent is to fill all the spaces at once so that, when they have to move them every 29 days, it is an easy move for everybody. She added that the intent is to have all spaces filled, whether with program participants or the temporary parking for other oversized vehicles in town. She stated that they don’t want any spaces not being used.
Chair Berman asked if there were further questions.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that she didn’t need any flexing on the timing as she concurred with staff’s recommendation to do everything simultaneously. She would be interested in adding one more condition that says something along the lines of active construction project is created and the city also assesses the noise impacts on occupants. She thought there was also a health issue with having noise pollution. She stated that the other one was probably fine but, if it is easy, she would add something like that.
Commissioner Wright asked how that is different from anybody else doing a construction project on their next door neighbor’s house.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that, if you are living in an oversize vehicle, you don’t have doublepaned windows.
Commissioner Wright stated that you have laminated glass which is better.
Vice Chair Hauser asked if the RVs have a stronger amount of glass.
Commissioner Wright stated that, with the laminated glass, when you hit it, it doesn’t break as it has plastic in between and it is a better sound barrier than normal glass.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that she will rescind her request.
Chair Berman asked if they need to make an entirely new motion or can they use the same motion that Commissioner Godwin gave and add the conditions of approval that Acting Planning Director Murdock reads.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that the motion that was previously read was already voted on, so they would be starting a new one.
Chair Berman asked if anyone wanted to provide a motion and incorporate the new conditions of approval. She then stated that she will help make the motion. She thought, with the two options they have, she would probably prefer to create less heartache and paperwork for the city staff.
She appreciated all their time at this meeting. She would prefer to make a motion in favor than deny.
Chair Berman moved that the Planning Commission FINDS the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report including conditions of approval in Exhibit A and the ones read by staff to the resolution, and incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference and to clarify the conditions read by staff just recently with the prior motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he can read them quickly for clarity in the record, “after not less than two months and not more than four months of operations, the applicant shall prepare a written operational review report summarizing operation of the program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District facility for review and consideration by the City Manager. The applicant shall confer with the North Coast County Water District to seek its input into the report; the program space shall have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the program space, ten feet by 30 feet, not less than five feet in depth and the full width of the program space ten feet with the exact depth at the discretion of the city engineer and all program participants shall comply with all Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the program spaces.”.
Chair Berman if anyone wants to second.
Commissioner Domurat seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
Ayes: Commissioners Domurat, Godwin, Hauser, Wright
and Vice Chair Berman
Noes: None
Chair Berman declared that anyone aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission has ten (10) calendar days to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council.