Agenda — Pacifica City Council, September 26, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Coastal Act Policy No. 26 states:

New development shall:
[…]
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development. (d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

The Appellant identifies the above portion of Coastal Act Policy No. 26 as applicable to the Project and claims that it is unlikely Program participants will meet all existing air quality, energy efficiency or noise regulations. Staff maintains that the Project is not at the scale that would necessitate or allow for implementation of many of these provisions for new development; however, to the extent applicable the Project is consistent because:
(a) The Planning Commission conditioned the Project as detailed in Resolution No. 2022-012 to require Program Participants to comply with all Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the Program spaces. This condition is consistent with requirements imposed by the air pollution control district. Additionally, the Program would require the Participants to have current State vehicle registration. Air quality requirements associated with the vehicle would be addressed through the State vehicle registration process. (b) The Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary parking space that requires very little development since the existing public street facility is being used. Therefore, the Project would require minimal energy consumption. Additionally, the Program would prioritize Participants that are existing Pacifica residents who are likely to have established connections, such as work, school, family, and friends in the area. By providing a temporary parking space in the area that Participants already reside in, the Project will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled compared to an alternative outside of Pacifica. Moreover, participants in the Program parked in the designated parking spaces do not have to move their vehicles every 72 hours to a new parking space thus reducing the number of trips that their vehicles have to take. (c) The Project would have no impact on the special character and neighborhood of West Sharp Park as oversized vehicles are currently able to park along Francisco Boulevard.

10.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
5 No City noise regulations are applicable to the Project itself because the Project is the establishment of the parking space in an area that already allows parking and the installation of street markings and signage. The Program participants would be required to comply with the Program’s Code of Conduct as codified in Pacifica Municipal Code Section 4-7.1207(e)(1). The Code of Conduct would require the Program participants to maintain quiet hours between 10pm and 8am and turn off generators at that time. Program participants would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance in Chapter 10, Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 2. “The Program will interfere with the District’s ability to provide essential public services and with the District’s construction of its new headquarters.” Response: The Appellant claims that the Project would negatively impact emergency operations at their facility by inhibiting the flow of traffic and parking in and around the facility, however the Appellant provides no evidence to support these statements. The District’s headquarters currently has three driveway entrances to access their site. Two entrances are located on the south side of the property along Clarendon Road and one entrance is located on the east side of the property along Francisco Boulevard. Between the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance and the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection to the south, the west side of the Francisco Boulevard ROW contains approximately 87 feet of curb space available for parking as well as approximately 24 feet of red curb which is located closest to the intersection. The proposed location of the Project would abut the north end of the red curb and consume 30 feet of the available 87 feet of curb space. A condition of approval added by the Planning Commission on May 16 would also add 5 feet of red curb on the north side of the Project site. This would result in approximately 52 feet of available curb between the northern extent of the new red curb for the Project site and the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Approximately 52 feet of curb length is more than a reasonable distance to conclude that the Project would not inhibit flow of traffic into the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Furthermore, typical street parking would continue to occur along the remaining curb space between the Project site and the Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance as currently allowed. The Project would have no impact on inhibiting the flow of traffic into the District’s two Clarendon Road driveway entrances because the Project site is located along Francisco Boulevard.

The Appellant’s claim that the Project would inhibit parking around the District’s headquarters by consuming parking that could be used by emergency response staff during times of an emergency or by their construction contractor during an anticipated future renovation project are unsubstantiated. The Project site is currently used by the public for on-street parking and is not reserved for the use of emergency response staff. Therefore, the Appellant’s implication that the Project site is available for emergency response staff at any given time is inaccurate. Additionally, property owners are required to provide adequate parking facilities for the use on the site and are unable to claim public ROW as parking space required and reserved for their use. The Appellant’s District headquarters has 12 on-site parking spaces. Finally, with regard to any future construction or development on the District property, no such future development is currently approved. The timing of any such future approval and subsequent construction is also unknown at this time and speculative. This is particularly relevant in light of the temporary duration of the Program and Project at this site. Should development on the District property be approved in the future, the District, like any other developer, would be responsible to accommodate construction parking on site or use public ROW as is available to the public. As the District is seeking approval of

10.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
6 development permitsfor their proposed headquartersrenovations, the City will evaluate the parking impacts of the District’s project as appropriate.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. “The City is required to review the Program de novo, which encompasses the right to present additional evidence and claims.”
Response: The Appellant contends that any citizen has the right to appeal, present additional evidence on any appeal and be provided a de novo public hearing on appeal of a Planning Commission approval, or denial to the City Council. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are generally governed by Article 36 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which provides that the appeal shall be heard and determined according to the procedures set forth in PMC Section 9-4.3208.

Subdivision (b) of Section 9-4.3208 provides that upon the receipt of the appeal, the Council may consider the appeal in one of the following ways:(1) By holding a public hearing, using the same procedures as set forth in Section 9-4.3302 of Article 33 of this chapter; or (2) By referral back to the Commission for reconsideration. Subdivision (c) of Section 9-4.3208 provides that upon considering the appeal, the Council may approve, deny, or modify the permit. Because the Council has the discretion to modify the development permit, Council’s review on appeal is indeed considered a de novo review and the Council can consider all aspects of a project considered by the Planning Commission – not simply the issues being appealed.

However, this review is limited to what was within the Planning Commission’s review jurisdiction.

The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the findings required for approval of the CDP could be made. The Planning Commission did not have the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Since this was not within the discretionary review authority of the Planning Commission, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing. The Council, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208(c), may either approve, deny or modify the CDP approved by the Planning Commission and not the Program itself because the Program was approved by the Council through a separate process. The Planning Commission had no authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Thus, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 4. “The City failed to provide adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program and must hold a new hearing on appeal to validate the ordinance.” Response: : As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission.

Because the issue of the validity of the Program implementation ordinance is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, appeal Basis No. 4 should not be considered by the Council. However, even if validity of the ordinance were relevant, this contention is without merit.

10.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
7 pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22507, not the Planning and Zoning Law; and (2) the Program Ordinance does not constitute an amendment to the City’s Planning and Zoning Code found in Title 9 of the PMC or the City’s General Plan because the Program Ordinance does not change any allowed land uses. The City’s regulations relating to parking are identified in Article 12, “Stopping, Standing and Parking Restricted or Prohibited of Chapter 7, Title 4, including the OSV Ordinance and other available parking permits. The Program Ordinance added a new Section 4-7.1207 to the PMC which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program. The Program Ordinance also amends PMC Section 5-

2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program. These provisions would not be appropriately included in the City’s Planning and Zoning Code because the use of the ROW did not change.

Parking regulations in the ROW, such as the ones contained in the Program Ordinance, are adopted pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22507 and the City’s inherent police powers under California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 to address health and safety issues, among other concerns. They are located in Title 4 and 5 of the PMC and are not considered a land use regulated by the Planning and Zoning Code.

Even assuming arguendo that Appellant is correct, a failure to provide the requisite notice under Government Code Section 65091 does not invalidate the Program Ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65093, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice under the requirements of Sections 65090–65091, do not constitute grounds for a court to invalidate the actions for which the notice was given. Thus, Appellant’s request to invalidate the Program Ordinance would not be appropriate.

Finally, although Appellant claims that they did not receive adequate notice of the Program Ordinance, there were numerous opportunities for the Appellant to provide public comment on the Program and the Program Ordinance. For example, the City Council specifically considered the Program Ordinance at two public meetings: February 28, 2022 and March 14, 2022 where members of the public, including Appellant, could provide public comment. The agendas for these meetings were distributed by email to the email distribution list for those that have requested agendas, posted at City Council Chambers (2212 Beach Boulevard) and at Pacifica Community Center (540 Crespi Drive) where the Civic Center / City Hall offices are currently located as well as posted online on the City of Pacifica website via the meeting portal. Additionally, the City Manager highlighted the Safe Parking Program agenda topic in the Friday February 25, 2022 release of the City’s weekly enewsletter “Connect With Pacifica” prior to the February 28, 2022 Council meeting where the agenda item and introduction of the ordinance was discussed. Appellant’s District Manager stated during the August 8, 2022 hearing that she does “… get notice of the Agenda and things and did see the TSPP was on for that agenda…” Thus, members of the public, including Appellant, were provided notice of the Program Ordinance prior to adoption.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 5. “The District and [sic] reserves the right to challenge the City’s determination for the parking and housing ordinance.”

10.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
8 Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission.

Since the issue of whether adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program was provided is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 5 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Appellant argues that the Program or the Program Ordinance does not fit within the scope of the CEQA exemptions identified by the City because the Appellant contends that allowing longterm parking of RVs, which Appellant equates to “temporary housing,” will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” These arguments are without merit.

First, with regard to the Class 1 exemption, Appellant contends that City ROW are not facilities subject to this exemption. However, that contention directly contradicts the language in Section 15301, which identifies existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc. and similar facilities, as an example of facilities that are listed and subject to the Class 1 exemption. Section 15301 also specifies that the types of “existing facilities” itemized are not intended to be an all-inclusive list but rather the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.

In this case, the Program will only involve a negligible expansion of use of existing City street facilities. Indeed, the Project merely includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The City is utilizing existing streets for parking of OSVs participating in the Program that will be signed and marked for the Program. The Project site is also currently used for OSV parking up to 72 hours by any individual OSV. Yet the space may be used continuously under existing regulations by any combination of different OSVs provided that no single OSV occupies the space for more than 72 hours. If the CDP is approved, the Project site will continue to be used for parking of OSVs by Program participants while the Program is being conducted. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Class 1 exemption would be inconsistent with the “separate findings that the City is intending to provide low-cost housing by allowing long term parking in these designated areas.” It is unclear what findings the Appellant is referring to as there is no such finding in the Program Ordinance. There is however, a finding in the Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 2022-012 approving the Project. The Planning Commission found that the Project, among other findings, was in conformance with Coastal Act Policy No. 5, because the “…Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.” This finding confirms why the Project conforms with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 and while the Project does encourage and provide housing opportunities to Program participants, the finding itself does not indicate that the City is intending to provide “low-cost housing” through the Program. While it is true that the Program will provide housing opportunities for participants because they will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV, the existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use.

Second, with regard to the Class 4 exemption, Appellant contends that allowing long-term parking of RVs (or temporary housing) will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” The Appellant does not provide any evidence beyond these broad statements to support its contention that there will be impacts to air quality, noise and public services. Appellant also does not appear to consider that the parking sites for the Program are currently used for vehicle parking, including OSV parking. While the Program will make alterations in the condition of land, given that the Program is temporary and the alterations to the land are minor (reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW, placement of post for signs and markings in ROW), the Class 4 exemption

10.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
9 is appropriate as there will be a negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

Third, with regard to the Common Sense exemption, Appellant argues that because the Program will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts given the likely use of generators and lack of utility connections for each designated location" the Program is not subject to the Common Sense exemption. Again, Appellant does not provide any evidence beyond these broad statements to support its contention that there will be impacts to air quality, noise and public service nor does the Appellant provide any evidence to support the contention that generators are more likely to be used by Program participants rather than other non-participant OSV operators.

This exemption provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, since the parking areas in the right-of-way are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, the Program and Ordinance are not a project that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the Common Sense exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The Program would essentially reserve 13 parking spaces for a temporary period of three years to allow Program participants to park at one of the Program sites for periods of up to 29 days while in the Program.

There would also be minor improvements to the Program parking spaces (placement of post for signs and markings in ROW). The Program would also provide other benefits to the Program participants such as trash and recycling collection and black water collection, however, these are services that OSV owners would require regardless of participation in the Program and OSV parking would be available regardless of the Program status. This negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

Fourth, none of the exceptions applicable to the Class 1 and 4 exemption in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, as described below.
• Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. • Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Finally, Appellant contends that City was required to file a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”). This is not correct. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152(b), when an agency determines that a project is exempt, it may file a notice of exemption but is not required to make any such filing. (See also Cal. Code of Regs. § 15062(a)).

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

10.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
10 Basis 6. “The City has the authority to and should select an alternative location to Francisco Boulevard.”
Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis Nos. 3, 4, and 5 the consideration of the Council on this Appeal is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Since an alternative location is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 6 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Program sites were approved as part of the Settlement Agreement in November 2021. The Program, including the design and operation of the Program, was considered and approved by the Pacifica City Council on February 22, 2022. As detailed in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report, the establishment of the parking space and implementation of the improvements in the Coastal Zone meet the definition of “development” per PMC Section 9-4.4302(z). Development in the Coastal Zone requires issuance of a Coastal Development Permit per PMC Section 9-4.4303(a).

The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the Project is appropriate or not, with respect to the findings required for approval of the Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission was not provided the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Therefore, because review and consideration of alternative locations for the Project was not within the Planning Commission’s purview, it is also beyond the purview of the City Council as part of the appeal.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that Project is an implementation of the Program. The City Council further finds, based on its independent judgment and after consideration of the whole administrative record, that (1) the Program and Project were previously assessed on February 28, 2022 in Resolution No. 12- 2022, and therein determined exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Existing Facilities, Minor Alterations to Land, and “Common Sense” exemptions, (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15304(e), 15061(b)(3)); and (2) there has been no change to the Program or Project or substantial changes in circumstances or new information that would warrant subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis or review of the Program or Project in accordance with CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 as required by PMC section 9-4.4304(k):
1) The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) includes the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) that contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. Applicable policies and references in the City’s LCLUP are discussed further below:

Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

10.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
11 Finding: The Program would reserve a small number of on-street parking spaces. Public access to the sea would be maintained between the Program parking space and the shoreline through the use of the existing sidewalk along the west side of Francisco Boulevard which connect to various public access points to the sea. The Code of Conduct associated with the Program would require Program participants to keep all personal property within the participants’ vehicles and would prohibit Program participants from blocking any access to the sidewalk. Additionally, the signage proposed at the site will be located within the public ROW, but outside of the street and path of travel on the sidewalk, similar to other existing traffic and parking signage along Francisco Boulevard. Therefore, the use of the Program parking space and the signage will not obstruct or degrade physical access along Francisco Boulevard and will not impact on the public’s right of access to the sea.

The Program parking space is located approximately 0.25-miles from the Clarendon Road coastal access point (Coastal Access Point No. 9 in LCLUP). In 2019, the City hired consultants to help prepare the Sharp Park Specific Plan. As a part of this effort the consultants prepared an Existing Conditions Report, which included a parking analysis for the West Sharp Park neighborhood. While the block along Francisco Boulevard that would contain the Program parking space is not specifically included in the parking survey, surrounding block segments were included. The survey found that parking along the block along Francisco Boulevard immediately to the north and Clarendon Road immediately to the south of the Project were 0 to 25 percent utilized during weekday midday and weekday evenings. During the weekend midday, the block along Francisco Boulevard immediate to the north was 0 to 25 percent utilized and the block along Clarendon Road immediately to the west was 50 to 75 percent utilized. The Program would remove 30 linear feet of existing public parking along Francisco Boulevard, which is approximately 1.5 parking spaces for a standard vehicle. The beach parking lot along Beach Boulevard as well as the various streets west of the Program parking space provides significant free parking options to coastal visitors. Due to the distance of the Program parking space from the nearby coastal access point, the general availability of parking in the vicinity, and the various other available parking options closer to the nearby coastal access point, the reserved public ROW will not adversely affect coastal visitor parking and will not impact the public’s right of access to the sea.

Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. […]
Finding: The Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.

Additionally, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As noted above, the Project site is not located within an underlying zoning district. However, it is located within the C-Z combining district and is subject to the supplementary standards contained in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 44 applicable to development in the Coastal Zone. Because of the nature of the activity involved with parking of Program

10.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
12 vehicles in designated spaces on the existing Francisco Boulevard public ROW, the Program would not conflict with the habitat preservation, geotechnical suitability, grading and drainage, shoreline protection, public shoreline access, coastal view corridors, growth management procedures, or neighborhood commercial district supplementary regulations. Therefore, the Project would be in conformity with the City’s IP component of the certified LCP For all the reasons provided above, the Project is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
2) Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby approve Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) parking space (30’ by 10’) and improvements on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public ROW, east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection, subject to conditions of approval included in Exhibit A to this Resolution. * * * * *

10.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
13 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of September 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

10.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2022-012 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-437- 22, to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space and improvements on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection.

City Council Meeting of September 26, 2022
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “OSV Permit Parking Spot Implementation – Francisco Blvd.” included as Attachment B of the May 16, 2022 Planning Commission staff report and Attachment E of the July 11, 2022 City Council staff report, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. The term of this approval shall be limited to the period of effectiveness of the Temporary Safe Parking Program approved by the City of Pacifica City Council in Resolution No. 12- 2022. This approval shall have no further force or effect upon termination of the Temporary Safe Parking Program unless expressly authorized in another action by the City Council.

3. The City of Pacifica shall remove associated signage and pavement markings upon termination of the Temporary Safe Parking Program unless expressly authorized in another action by the City Council.

4. All vehicles and occupants of the spaces authorized in this approval shall comply with the terms, conditions, and other requirements of the Temporary Safe Parking Program, including but not limited to the Code of Conduct.

Conditions added by Planning Commission at May 16, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing

5. 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 (NCCWD) facility for review and consideration by the City Manager. The Applicant shall confer with the NCCWD to seek its input into the Report.

6. The Program space shall have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the Program space (10' X 30') not less than 5' in depth and the full width of the program space (10'), with the exact depth at the discretion of the City Engineer.

7. All Program participants shall comply with all BAAQMD regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the Program spaces. ***END***

10.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

10.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (5134 : Temporary

10.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (5134 : Temporary

10.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (5134 : Temporary

10.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (5134 : Temporary

10.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (5134 : Temporary

10.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (5134 : Temporary

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: May 16, 2022 FILE: CDP-437-22
ITEM: 4
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published Pacifica Tribune on May 4, 2022, and mailed to approximately 362 surrounding property owners and occupants and posted in three locations in the vicinity of the project site.

APPLICANT: Ryan Marquez, Associate Engineer
City of Pacifica, Department of Public Works
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: West side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection – West Sharp Park
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: File No.2022-012 - Establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program (Program) parking space (30’ by 10’). The on-street parking space would be reserved for the 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. Improvements include installation of signage and use of pavement markings to denote location of the Program parking space.

SITE DESIGNATIONS: General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan: N/A (Public right-of-way) Zoning: C-Z (Coastal Zone Combining District)
RECOMMENDED CEQA STATUS: Class 1 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 “Existing Facilities”; Class 4 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 “Minor Alterations to Land”; and “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVALS: None. Subject to appeal to the City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve as conditioned.

PREPARED BY: Bonny O’Connor, AICP, Senior Planner
4 Packet Pg. 48

10.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 2 ends

PROJECT SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS

1. Project Background
On February 28, 2022, the City of Pacifica City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-2022 to approve a three-year Temporary Safe Parking Program (Program) in the City of Pacifica which provides up to 13 parking spaces for exclusive use by Program participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating toilet facilities.1 The Program would allow temporary parking of such vehicles for a limited period of time in designated spaces that have been approved by the City Council while Program participants seek permanent housing solutions2. The resolution also authorized the City Manager to execute the Operations Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto between the City of Pacifica and the Pacifica Resource Center (PRC), which details the terms, provisions, and obligations of the PRC and City to implement the Program. The City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 873-C.S. adding a new PMC Section 4-7.1207, which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program and amended PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program.

The Program includes the establishment of one on-street Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016- 322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection.

Improvements, including installation of two pole signs and pavement markings, will be used to designated the area of public ROW being reserved for the Program parking spaces.

Program parking space locations both within and outside of the coastal zone include:

Location Number of Spaces
West side of Oceana Boulevard, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
4 South side of Milagra Drive, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
1 East side of Lundy Way, north of Rifle Range Road 3
West side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course3 2 San Pedro Avenue in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware4 2 West side of Francisco Boulevard adjacent to North Coast County Water District at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (Project site)
1 1 The City Council approved the location of the Program parking spaces as part of the approval of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders on November 8, 2021 (Pacifica City Council Resolution No. 72-2021) 2 Pacifica City Council Resolution No. 12-2022.
3 File No. 2022-014, Coastal Development Permit CDP-439-22 4 File No. 2022-013, Coastal Development Permit CDP-438-22 4 Packet Pg. 49

10.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 3 ends

2. Project Description
The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for exclusive use of Program participants for a period of three years, which constitutes one space at the subject location. The City will install two pole signs adjacent to the Program parking space. An example of the proposed 12” by 18” signs is shown in Attachment B. Additionally, a 4” white thermoplastic marking will be used to outline the three non-curb sides of the designated Program parking space.

3. General Plan, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is not designated by the General Plan or Local Coastal Land Use Plan as the entire Project would occur within City of Pacifica ROW (Attachment C). The Project is not located in the appeal zone of the Coastal Zone. The North Coast County Water District headquarters (2400 Francisco Boulevard, APN 016-322-230) is located west of the Project, State Route 1 is located east of the Project, residential uses are located to the north of the Project site and a mix of commercial and residential uses are located to the south of the Project site along Francisco Boulevard.

4. Municipal Code and Other Development Regulations
The establishment of the Program parking space and implementation of the improvements5in the Coastal Zone meets the definition of “development” per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) sec. 9-

4.4302(z). Development in the Coastal Zone requires issuance of a Coastal Development Permit per PMC sec. 9-4.4303(a).

5. Required Findings
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 – The Planning Commission shall grant a coastal development permit only when all of the following findings are made:
1) The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

Finding: The Program would reserve a small number of on-street parking spaces. Public access to the sea would be maintained between the Program parking space and the shoreline through the use of the existing sidewalk along the west side of Francisco Boulevard which connect to 5 Proposed signs are exempted from a sign permit per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) sec. 9-4.2904(s). 4 Packet Pg. 50

10.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 4 ends

various public access points to the sea. The Code of Conduct associated with the Program would require Program participants to keep all personal property within the participants’ vehicles and would prohibit Program participants from blocking any access to the sidewalk. Additionally, the signage proposed at the site will be located within the public ROW, but outside of the street and path of travel on the sidewalk, similar to other existing traffic and parking signage along Francisco Boulevard. Therefore, the use of the Program parking space and the signage will not obstruct or degrade physical access along Francisco Boulevard and will not impact on the public’s right of access to the sea.

While the block along Francisco Boulevard that would contain the Program parking space is not specifically included in the parking survey, surrounding block segments were included. The survey found that parking along the block along Francisco Boulevard immediately to the north and Clarendon Road immediately to the south of the Project were 0 to 25 percent utilized during weekday midday and weekday evenings. During the weekend midday, the block along Francisco Boulevard immediate to the north was 0 to 25 percent utilized and the block along Clarendon Road immediately to the west was 50 to 75 percent utilized. The Program would remove 30 linear feet of existing public parking along Francisco Boulevard, which is approximately 1.5 parking spaces for a standard vehicle. The beach parking lot along Beach Boulevard as well as the various streets west of the Program parking space provides significant free parking options to coastal visitors. Due to the distance of the Program parking space from the nearby coastal access point, the general availability of parking in the vicinity, and the various other available parking options closer to the nearby coastal access point, the reserved public ROW will not adversely affect coastal visitor parking and will not impact the public’s right of access to the sea.

Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. […] Finding: The Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.

As noted above, the Project site is not located within an underlying zoning district. However, it is 6 Sharp Park Existing Conditions Report (December 2019), Chapter 4, Figures 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9. Available online:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cafbfb565019f7d38d3fed4/t/5e30b764351c542c9b3ff5e2/158025101109 4/_Pacifica+ECR+compiled_reducedsize.pdf
4 Packet Pg. 51

10.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 5 ends

located within the C-Z combining district and is subject to the supplementary standards contained in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 44 applicable to development in the Coastal Zone. Because of the nature of the activity involved with parking of Program vehicles in designated spaces on the existing Francisco Boulevard public ROW, the Program would not conflict with the habitat preservation, geotechnical suitability, grading and drainage, shoreline protection, public shoreline access, coastal view corridors, growth management procedures, or neighborhood commercial district supplementary regulations.

Therefore, the Project would be in conformity with the City’s IP component of the certified LCP For all the reasons provided above, the Project is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
2) Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

6. CEQA Recommendation
Staff analysis of the proposed Project supports a Planning Commission finding that it qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project qualifies for Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as described below:
15301. “Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. […]”
The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use. 15304. “Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
[…]
(e) Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc;” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on 4 Packet Pg. 52

10.c
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 6 ends

the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations and do not involve removal of healthy, mature scenic trees.

Additionally, none of the exceptions applicable to a Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, as described below.
• Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
• Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because the Project is consistent with the requirements for Class 1 and Class 11 exemptions and none of the exceptions to applying Class 1 and 11 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations to the existing environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

7. Staff Analysis
The Project, as conditioned, would meet the necessary findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and would support the Program approved by City Council. 4 Packet Pg. 53

10.c
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 7 ends

COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move 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 to the resolution; and, incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Francisco Blvd. (DOCX) Attachment B - Permit Parking Spots Scope - Francisco Blvd. (PDF) Attachment C - Land Use and Zoning Exhibit - Francisco Blvd. (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 54
Not Attached Here
Not Attached Here
Not Attached Here

10.c
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 62 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 63 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 64 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 65 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 66 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 67 of 76 ends

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

10.d
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 68 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 69 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 70 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 71 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 72 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 73 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 74 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 75 of 76 ends

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP OSV Permit Parking Spot Implementation -
Francisco Blvd.

Summary
This is to get City road spots agreed upon by City Council ready for OSV parking. The elements are signage and pavement markings.

1. Sign & Poles – 2 signs (generally) denoting where the OSV spots are will be placed at each location, except otherwise said. One where the spot(s) begin and end.

2. Pavement marking – traffic paint will used to denote the pavement begin, end and width of the OSV spot(s). Where multiple spots exist in one area, there will not be denotation of each individual spot but just beginning and end and width limit.

Signs & Poles
Signs will be placed adjacent the OSV space(s). Poles to be 2” galvanized steel pipe, hardware to be tamper proof. New pole installation will be account of any possible ADA issues and place poles behind sidewalk when ROW exists.

Sample sign shown below. Pole and sign installation, per site plan layouts attached.

Pavement Marking
A 4” white pavement marking will be used to outline the three non-curb sides of the designated OSV space, as shown in the site layouts in yellow.

10.e
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment E - Permit Parking Spots Scope - Francisco Blvd. (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space Francisco Blvd.
• 2 sign and pole installation needed. One near stop sign, one near north boundary of OSV location. • 4” white stripe- offset from edge of pavement 10’ and front and back of zone. Will be field marked.

Approx. 30’ in length.

10.e
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment E - Permit Parking Spots Scope - Francisco Blvd. (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space

10.f
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Appeal)

10.f
Packet Pg. 371
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Appeal)

10.f
Packet Pg. 372
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Appeal)

10.f
Packet Pg. 373
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Appeal)

10.f
Packet Pg. 374
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Appeal)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (File No. 2022-012).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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

A. BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs1 challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (“OSV”) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance.2 On November 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 72-2021 approving execution of a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) for the lawsuit and as part of the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed to develop and adopt an on-street, temporary safe parking program (“Program”) and identified the 13 designated parking spots that would be used for the Program, to be jointly administered with Pacifica Resource Center (“PRC”).

On February 28, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-2022 to approve a threeyear Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) in the City of Pacifica which provides up to 13 parking spaces for exclusive use by Program participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating toilet facilities. The Program would allow temporary parking of such vehicles for limited time periods in each of the designated spaces that have been approved by the City Council while Program participants seek permanent housing solutions. The resolution also authorized the City Manager to execute the Operations 1 Named Plaintiffs identified in the Complaint are as follows: Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders
2 Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780 14 Packet Pg. 229

10.g
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 2 August 08, 2022
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto between the City of Pacifica and the PRC, which details the terms, provisions, and obligations of the PRC and City to implement the Program. The City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 873-C.S. adding a new PMC Section 4-

7.1207, which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program and amended PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program.

Program parking space locations both within and outside of the coastal zone include:

Location Number of Spaces
West side of Oceana Boulevard, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
4 South side of Milagra Drive, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
1 East side of Lundy Way, north of Rifle Range Road 3
West side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course3 2 San Pedro Avenue in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware4 2 West side of Francisco Boulevard adjacent to North Coast County Water District at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (Project site)
1 On May 16, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-012 by a vote of 5 to 0 finding establishment of one on-street Program parking space (30’ by 10’) and improvements on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public ROW, east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (“Project”) exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving, with conditions, Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 (“Development Permit”) (Attachment B). The staff report and minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of May 16, 2022, are included as Attachments C and D, respectively. The Project plans are included as Attachment E.

After duly noticing the public hearing for a regular meeting of the City Council on July 11, 2022, staff requested a continuance for the appeal hearing to August 8, 2022, in order to manage the number of items on the City Council’s agenda. The Appellant agreed to the continuance and the City Council granted the continuance to their regular meeting on August 8, 2022.

B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
On May 26, 2022, North Coast County Water District (hereafter “Appellant” or “District”) timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Development Permit for the Project (Attachment F). The Appellant cited several reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below. 3 This location is the subject of an ongoing appeal to the California Coastal Commission. 4 Ibid.
14 Packet Pg. 230

10.g
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 3 August 08, 2022
Basis 1. “The Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Local Coastal Program.”
Staff Response: The Appellant claims that if the City is unable to meet all applicable Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) policies related to housing, then the only legal option is to move all housing and temporary parking locations outside of the City’s Coastal Zone. This statement is inaccurate and misstates the requirements for the Planning Commission findings required for the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to PMC section 9-4.4304(k) as further supplemented by the discussion below. Staff has also found that the Project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”).

The Appellant contends that the May 16, 2022 Planning Commission staff report cited Coastal Act Policy Nos. 2 and 5 for purpose of seeking a blanket determination that the Program is consistent with the City’s LCP. This statement is incorrect. As explained in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report the LCP consists of the LCLUP and the Implementation Plan (“IP”). The staff report identifies LCLUP Coastal Act Policy Nos. 2 and 5 as applicable policies as the Project would support both Policies. No regulations in the IP are applicable to the Project.

The Appellant claims that if the City should consider the Project as housing then all other applicable housing policies should apply and cites Coastal Act Policy Nos. 23, 25, and portions of 26. The finding to support the Project’s consistency with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 identifies the Project as a temporary housing opportunity because Program participants will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV. Staff notes that Coastal Act Policy Nos. 23, 25, and 26 are not specific to housing developments, however staff addresses each of these policies as cited by the Appellant below.

Coastal Act Policy No. 23 states:

New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels. Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.

Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.

This policy requires that new development is “located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it.” The Project site is an existing developed street. Furthermore, the Project is immediately surrounded by existing developed areas, including the District’s headquarters (2400 Francisco Boulevard, APN 016-322-230) to the west, State Route 1 to the east, and residential uses to the north, and a mix of commercial and residential uses to the south of the Project site along Francisco Boulevard. Because the Project site is located near existing developed areas, the criteria for new development in areas not near existing developed areas does not apply. Regardless, staff notes that the Program, which would support the Project site, requires Participants to have an operational recreational vehicle with operating toilets. The Program will provide Participants with public services such as regular access to water at PRC’s facility, regular access to black and gray water disposal facilities, and regular access to solid waste and recycling facilities. The policy does not define “adequate public services” as utility connections for sewer, water, heating or air conditioning as 14 Packet Pg. 231

10.g
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 4 August 08, 2022
implied by the Appellant. Finally, the remaining language of Coastal Act Policy No. 23 is not applicable as the Project does not include land divisions, new hazardous industrial development, or visitor-serving facilities.

Coastal Act Policy No. 25 states:

The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by:
(a) Facilitating the provision or extension of transit service; (b) Providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development, or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads; (c) Providing non-automobile circulation within the development; (d) Providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation;
(e) Assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings; and
(f) Assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with, the provision of on-site recreational facilities to serve the new development.

The Appellant claims that new housing must enhance public access, using options in the policy, which Appellant believes were not met by the Project. The Project is not at the scale that would necessitate or allow for implementation of many of these enhancements for public access because:
(a) The Project would occur within an existing public right-of-way (“ROW”) and wouldn’t establish a new area that would require an extension of transit service. The Project would simply establish one on-street Program parking space and installation of street markings and signage to the public ROW, thus the Project wouldn’t impact existing public transit service.
(b) The Project doesn’t include commercial facilities and the Project site is already in the immediate vicinity of commercial uses. The Project will also not minimize the use of coastal access roads as the Project is located in the ROW and will not impede any vehicular access to vehicles traveling in the area.
(c) The Project site is 30’ by 10’ and would not be large enough to accommodate nonautomobile circulation within the development. Additionally, an existing public sidewalk would be maintained immediately west of the Project site. (d) The Project is to provide a parking space and therefore the Project would meet this public access provision by its own design. Additionally, as analyzed in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report, adequate visitor-serving parking is available in the vicinity of the Project.
(e) The Project does not include high intensity uses. Additionally, the project wouldn’t impact existing public transit service.
(f) At most, the Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary opportunity for Program participants to park for 30 days at a time in one location. The Program would prioritize existing residents of Pacifica and therefore it is likely the participants would not be new residents. However, even if there are new residents, they will not overload nearby coastal areas as there are only 5 parking spaces in the Program that are in the coastal zone and existing nearby recreational areas, such as Sharp Park Beach, Sharp Park Golf Course, Brighton Park, and other nearby recreational facilities would be adequate to accommodate the participants.

Coastal Act Policy No. 26 states:

New development shall:
14 Packet Pg. 232

10.g
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 5 August 08, 2022
[…]
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development. (d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

Additionally, the Program would require the Participants to have current State vehicle registration. Air quality requirements associated with the vehicle would be addressed through the State vehicle registration process.
(b) The Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary parking space that requires very little development since the existing public street facility is being used.

Therefore, the Project would require minimal energy consumption. Additionally, the Program would prioritize Participants that are existing Pacifica residents who are likely to have established connections, such as work, school, family, and friends in the area. By providing a temporary parking space in the area that Participants already reside in, the Project will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled compared to an alternative outside of Pacifica.

Moreover, participants in the Program parked in the designated parking spaces do not have to move their vehicles every 72 hours to a new parking space thus reducing the number of trips that their vehicles have to take.
(c) The Project would have no impact on the special character and neighborhood of West Sharp Park as oversized vehicles are currently able to park along Francisco Boulevard.

No City noise regulations are applicable to the Project itself because the Project is the establishment of the parking space in an area that already allows parking and the installation of street markings and signage. The Program participants would be required to comply with the Program’s Code of Conduct as codified in Pacifica Municipal Code Section 4-7.1207(e)(1). The Code of Conduct would require the Program participants to maintain quiet hours between 10pm and 8am and turn off generators at that time. Program participants would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance in Chapter 10, Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 2. “The Program will interfere with the District’s ability to provide essential public services and with the District’s construction of its new headquarters.” Staff Response: The Appellant claims that the Project would negatively impact emergency operations at their facility by inhibiting the flow of traffic and parking in and around the facility, however the Appellant provides no evidence to support these statements. The District’s headquarters currently has three driveway entrances to access their site. Two entrances are located on the south side of the property along Clarendon Road and one entrance is located on the east side of the property along Francisco Boulevard. Between the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance and the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection to 14 Packet Pg. 233

10.g
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 6 August 08, 2022
the south, the west side of the Francisco Boulevard ROW contains approximately 87 feet of curb space available for parking as well as approximately 24 feet of red curb which is located closest to the intersection. The proposed location of the Project would abut the north end of the red curb and consume 30 feet of the available 87 feet of curb space. A condition of approval added by the Planning Commission on May 16 would also add 5 feet of red curb on the north side of the Project site. This would result in approximately 52 feet of available curb between the northern extent of the new red curb for the Project site and the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Approximately 52 feet of curb length is more than a reasonable distance to conclude that the Project would not inhibit flow of traffic into the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Furthermore, typical street parking would continue to occur along the remaining curb space between the Project site and the Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance as currently allowed. The Project would have no impact on inhibiting the flow of traffic into the District’s two Clarendon Road driveway entrances because the Project site is located along Francisco Boulevard.

Additionally, property owners are required to provide adequate parking facilities for the use on the site and are unable to claim public ROW as parking space required and reserved for their use. The Appellant’s District headquarters has 12 on-site parking spaces. Finally, with regard to any future construction or development on the District property, no such future development is currently approved. The timing of any such future approval and subsequent construction is also unknown at this time and speculative. This is particularly relevant in light of the temporary duration of the Program and Project at this site. Should development on the District property be approved in the future, the District, like any other developer, would be responsible to accommodate construction parking on site or use public ROW as is available to the public. As the District is seeking approval of development permits for their proposed headquarters renovations, the City will evaluate the parking impacts of the District’s project as appropriate.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. “The City is required to review the Program de novo, which encompasses the right to present additional evidence and claims.”
Staff Response: The Appellant contends that any citizen has the right to appeal, present additional evidence on any appeal and be provided a de novo public hearing on appeal of a Planning Commission approval, or denial to the City Council. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are generally governed by Article 36 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which provides that the appeal shall be heard and determined according to the procedures set forth in PMC Section 9-4.3208. Subdivision (b) of Section 9-4.3208 provides that upon the receipt of the appeal, the Council may consider the appeal in one of the following ways:(1) By holding a public hearing, using the same procedures as set forth in Section 9-4.3302 of Article 33 of this chapter; or (2) By referral back to the Commission for reconsideration. Subdivision (c) of Section 9-

4.3208 provides that upon considering the appeal, the Council may approve, deny, or modify the permit. Because the Council has the discretion to modify the development permit, Council’s review on appeal is indeed considered a de novo review and the Council can consider all aspects of a project considered by the Planning Commission – not simply the issues being appealed.
14 Packet Pg. 234

10.g
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 7 August 08, 2022
However, this review is limited to what was within the Planning Commission’s review jurisdiction. The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the findings required for approval of the CDP could be made. The Planning Commission did not have the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Since this was not within the discretionary review authority of the Planning Commission, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing. The Council, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208(c), may either approve, deny or modify the CDP approved by the Planning Commission and not the Program itself because the Program was approved by the Council through a separate process.

The Planning Commission had no authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Thus, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 4. “The City failed to provide adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program and must hold a new hearing on appeal to validate the ordinance.” Staff Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Because the issue of the validity of the Program implementation ordinance is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, appeal Basis No. 4 should not be considered by the Council.

However, even if validity of the ordinance were relevant, this contention is without merit.

While the Appellant claims that the City failed to provide the District with the specified mailed notice that is required for certain general plan and zoning code changes pursuant to Government Code Section 65091(a)(4), those provisions are only applicable to certain planning and land use matters. In the case of the Program Ordinance, the City was not required to provide any notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65091 because the Program Ordinance does not constitute an amendment to the City’s Planning and Zoning Code found in Title 9 of the PMC or the City’s General Plan because the Program Ordinance does not change any allowed land uses. Rather, the City’s regulations relating to parking are identified in Article 12, “Stopping, Standing and Parking Restricted or Prohibited of Chapter 7, Title 4, including the OSV Ordinance and other available parking permits. The Program Ordinance added a new Section 4-7.1207 to the PMC which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program. The Program Ordinance also amends PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program. These provisions would not be appropriately included in the City’s Planning and Zoning Code because the use of the ROW did not change.

The Program Ordinance is not a zoning ordinance simply because some of the parking sites are located within a coastal zone and provide a temporary housing opportunity. The coastal zone issue is only relevant to the question of whether certain parking sites need a Coastal Development Permit. Parking regulations in the ROW, such as the ones contained in the Program Ordinance, are adopted through the City’s inherent police powers under the California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 to address health and safety issues, among other concerns.

They are located in Title 4 and 5 of the PMC and are not considered a land use regulated by the Planning and Zoning Code.
14 Packet Pg. 235

10.g
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 8 August 08, 2022
Even assuming arguendo that Appellant is correct, a failure to provide the requisite notice under Government Code Section 65091 does not invalidate the ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65093, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice under the requirements of Sections 65090–65091, do not constitute grounds for a court to invalidate the actions for which the notice was given. Thus, Appellant’s request to invalidate the Program Ordinance would not be appropriate.

Additionally, the City Manager highlighted the Safe Parking Program agenda topic in the Friday February 25, 2022 release of the City’s weekly e-newsletter “Connect With Pacifica” prior to the February 28, 2022 Council meeting where the agenda item and introduction of the ordinance was discussed. Thus, members of the public, including Appellant, were provided notice of the Program Ordinance prior to adoption.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 5. “The District and [sic] reserves the right to challenge the City’s determination for the parking and housing ordinance.”
Staff Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Since the issue of whether adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program was provided is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 5 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Appellant argues that the Program or the Program Ordinance does not fit within the scope of the CEQA exemptions identified by the City because the Appellant contends that allowing long-term parking of RVs, which Appellant equates to “temporary housing,” will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” These arguments are without merit.

The Program Ordinance was determined by the Council to be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(Class 1- Existing Facilities) and 15304 (Class 4-Minor Alterations to Land) and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) based on staff’s recommendation and review of the Program and Program Ordinance.

Section 15301 also specifies that the types of “existing facilities” itemized are not intended to be an all-inclusive list but rather the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. In this case, the Program will only involve a negligible expansion of use of existing City street facilities. The City is utilizing existing streets for parking of OSVs participating in the Program that will be signed and marked for the Program. The Project site is 14 Packet Pg. 236

10.g
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 9 August 08, 2022
also currently used for OSV parking up to 72 hours by any individual OSV. Yet the space may be used continuously under existing regulations by any combination of different OSVs provided that no single OSV occupies the space for more than 72 hours. If the CDP is approved, the Project site will continue to be used for parking of OSVs by Program participants while the Program is being conducted. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Class 1 exemption would be inconsistent with the “separate findings that the City is intending to provide low-cost housing by allowing long term parking in these designated areas.” It is unclear what findings the Appellant is referring to as there is no such finding in the Program Ordinance. There is however, a finding in the Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 2022-012 approving the Project. The Planning Commission found that the Project, among other findings, was in conformance with Coastal Act Policy No. 5, because the “…Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.” This finding confirms why the Project conforms with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 and while the Project does encourage and provide housing opportunities to Program participants, the finding itself does not indicate that the City is intending to provide “low-cost housing” through the Program. While it is true that the Program will provide housing opportunities for participants because they will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV, the use of the ROW will remain essentially the same and there is only a negligible expansion of the former use of existing City facilities as a result of the Program- and thus the Class 1 exemption is appropriate.

With regard to the Class 4 exemption, Appellant contends that allowing long-term parking of RVs (or temporary housing) will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” The Appellant does not provide any evidence beyond these broad statements to support its contention that there will be impacts to air quality, noise and public services.

Appellant also does not appear to consider that the parking sites for the Program are currently used for vehicle parking, including OSV parking. While the Program will make alterations in the condition of land, given that the Program is temporary and the alterations to the land are minor (reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW, placement of post for signs and markings in ROW), the Class 4 exemption is appropriate.

With regard to the Common Sense exemption, the Appellant argues that because the Program will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts given the likely use of generators and lack of utility connections for each designated location" the Program is not subject to the Common Sense exemption. Again, the Appellant does not provide any evidence beyond these broad statements to support its contention that there will be impacts to air quality, noise and public service nor does the Appellant provide any evidence to support the contention that generators are more likely to be used by Program participants rather than other nonparticipant OSV operators. This exemption provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, since the parking areas in the right-of-way are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, the Program and Ordinance are not a project that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the Common Sense exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The Program would essentially reserve 13 parking spaces for a temporary period of three years to allow Program participants to park at one of the Program sites for periods of up to 29 days while in the Program. There would also be minor improvements to the Program parking spaces (placement of post for signs and markings in ROW). The Program would also provide other benefits to the Program participants such as trash and recycling collection and black water collection, however, these are services that OSV owners would require regardless of participation in the Program and OSV parking would be 14 Packet Pg. 237

10.g
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 10 August 08, 2022
available regardless of the Program status. This negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

Appellant also contends that City was required to file a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”). This is not correct. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152(b), when an agency determines that a project is exempt, it may file a notice of exemption but is not required to make any such filing. (See also California Code of Regulations Section 15062(a)).

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 6. “The City has the authority to and should select an alternative location to Francisco Boulevard.”
Staff Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis Nos. 3, 4, and 5 the consideration of the Council on this Appeal is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Since an alternative location is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 6 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Program sites were approved as part of the Settlement Agreement in November 2021. The Program, including the design and operation of the Program, was considered and approved by the Pacifica City Council on February 22, 2022.5
As detailed in the May 16 Planning
Commission staff report, the establishment of the parking space and implementation of the improvements in the Coastal Zone meet the definition of “development” per PMC Section 9-

4.4302(z). Development in the Coastal Zone requires issuance of a Coastal Development Permit per PMC Section 9-4.4303(a). The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the Project is appropriate or not, with respect to the findings required for approval of the Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission was not provided the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Therefore, because review and consideration of alternative locations for the Project was not within the Planning Commission’s purview, it is also beyond the purview of the City Council as part of the appeal.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

C. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Coastal Development Permit, after considering the appeal. In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit, the Council should deny the appeal by adopting the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal and deny the Project, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal by staff and brought back to Council at a later date.
5 City of Pacifica City Council Resolution No. 12-2022
14 Packet Pg. 238

10.g
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 11 August 08, 2022
D. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis of the Project supports the City Council finding that the Project qualifies for Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as described below:
15301. “Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be allinclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. […]” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use. 15304. “Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
[…]
(e) Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.;” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations and do not involve removal of healthy, mature scenic trees.

Additionally, none of the exceptions applicable to a Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, as described below. x Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. x Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. x Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
x Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because the Project is consistent with the requirements for Class 1 and Class 4 exemptions and none of the exceptions to applying Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
14 Packet Pg. 239

10.g
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 12 August 08, 2022
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations to the existing environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

E. STAFF SUMMARY
Staff believes there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval as discussed above. Staff also believes there is substantial evidence to support the application of Class 1 and 4 CEQA exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) to the Project. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.

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

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The Project is consistent with the following City Council-adopted goal:

Goals
● “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, exploring and implementing strategies that relate to homelessness, and supporting community services for all ages.

It is also the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

In the event the Settlement Agreement conditions are not met, the City could incur significant additional costs in defending the lawsuit which could exceed $500,000. These additional costs would be in addition to the over $300,000 in legal defense costs already expended in the lawsuit.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
14 Packet Pg. 240

10.g
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP Pacifica City Council 13 August 08, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (PDF) Attachment E - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (PDF)
14 Packet Pg. 241
Not included here
Not included here
Not included here
Not included here
Not included here
Not included here

10.g
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd. Space CDP August 8, 2022
The Honorable Donne Brownsey, Chair
California Coastal Commission
455 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5202
Subj: Substantial Issue Determinations for Appeal Nos. A-2-PAC-22-0031 and A-2-PAC-22-0031, City of Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program on Bradford Way and San Pedro Avenue (August 2022 Meeting, Agenda Items F7a and F7b)
Dear Chair Brownsey:

The City of Pacifica (“City”) enacted an ordinance to authorize parking of certain oversized vehicles in the public right-of-way across Pacifica, including areas inside and outside the Coastal Zone, as part of the Temporary Safe Parking Program (“TSPP”).
1 The City has issued coastal development permits (“CDPs”) to authorize three TSPP parking locations in the Coastal Zone, comprised of five total spaces. Two of the TSPP parking locations have been appealed to the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) and are the subjects of the two above-referenced substantial issue determinations. These parking locations each have two spaces. The third TSPP parking location in the Coastal Zone, comprised of one space, is the subject of a separate local appeal to the Pacifica City Council that is scheduled to be heard on August 8, 2022.

The above-referenced appeals are without merit and have not raised any substantial issues related to Coastal Act consistency. CCC staff has acknowledged as much in its analysis. The City’s actions to issue the CDPs for the TSPP were supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the CDPs issued by the City would be consistent with Pacifica’s certified Local Coastal Program, and contained conditions of approval to protect coastal resources including measures to prevent illicit dumping of sewage and to ensure safe disposal of trash. Nevertheless, CCC staff has attempted to expand the CCC’s substantial issue determinations to consider matters that were not the subject of the City’s issuance of the CDPs to implement the TSPP. Specifically, CCC staff has claimed that the CCC should find a substantial issue with both City-issued CDPs to address its concerns with a separate action by the City to enact an ordinance on January 27, 2020, to regulate oversized vehicle parking (“OSV Ordinance”). 2 The appeals should be denied for several reasons. First, alleged impacts of the City’s OSV Ordinance are the sole basis for CCC staff’s recommendation that the CCC find a substantial issue. However, the CCC lacks appellate jurisdiction to approve, modify, or deny the OSV Ordinance in connection with the appeals. Second, the appeals do not raise a substantial issue. Finally, even if the CCC has jurisdiction to consider the OSV 1 City of Pacifica Ordinance No. 873-C.S., adopted on March 14, 2022. 2 City of Pacifica Ordinance No. 866-C.S., adopted January 27, 2020.

CITY OF PACIFICA
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
540 Crespi Dr. • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
(650) 738-7341 • www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Mary Bier

MAYOR PRO TEM
Tygarjas Bigstyck

COUNCIL
Mike O’Neill
Sue Vaterlaus
Scenic Pacifica Sue Beckmeyer
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

10.h
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment H - City's Coorespondance to California Coastal Commission (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Substantial Issue Determinations for Appeal Nos. A-2-PAC-22-0031 and A-2-PAC-22-0031, City of Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program on Bradford Way and San Pedro Avenue (August 2022 Meeting, Agenda Items F7a and F7b)
August 8, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

Ordinance in the context of the above-referenced appeals (it does not) CCC staff’s contention that the OSV Ordinance is “development” that requires a CDP is incorrect.

1. The CCC Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider the OSV Ordinance in Connection with the Appeals
The Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction extends only to the review of the “development” on appeal. (Schneider v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1345; 14 CCR § 13113.) Indeed, the CCC may only “approve, modify, or deny [the] proposed development” that is the subject of the appeal. (Pub. Res. Code § 30625(a).) Here, CCC staff determined that (1) “the City-approved project should not significantly alter or affect existing access”; and (2) “Appellant’s habitat contentions do not raise a substantial Coastal Act or LCP issue.” Nevertheless, CCC staff recommended that the CCC find a “substantial issue” over concern that the City’s years-old OSV Ordinance may adversely impact the “unsheltered community.” However, CCC staff’s opinion that the TSPP and OSV Ordinance are “inextricably linked” is erroneous. The OSV Ordinance was lawfully adopted in January 2020 and is being enforced within the Coastal Zone to regulate OSV parking.3 Relevant facts pertaining to the OSV Ordinance include the following:
• The OSV ordinance’s parking standards are safety-based and driven primarily by street width. Given the City’s age, there are many narrow streets which results in various safety challenges for multi-modes of transportation based on those street widths. For instance, OSV obstruction of traffic safety sight lines within 100 feet of an uncontrolled intersection, and obstruction of bike lanes/bus routes forcing those street users to veer outside their normal paths of travel. Unregulated parking of OSVs jeopardizes public health and safety of both OSV and non-OSV visitors to the Coastal Zone due to the increased potential for collisions.
• The OSV ordinance has no time of day restrictions other than those generally applicable to parking of all vehicles, such as a 72-hour parking limit. Coastal visitors operating all types of vehicles that may lawfully operate on roads in California would continue to enjoy parking access in the Coastal Zone within Pacifica for up to 72 hours in any given parking space. • The City has prepared a map of allowable OSV parking locations.4 The map demonstrates there are ample parking locations in northern, central, and southern Pacifica. Even with the 100-foot intersection standard, the long blocks in the mapped areas facilitate OSV parking and would not result in an effective prohibition as may be the case in other jurisdictions.

The TSPP, in contrast, was enacted by ordinance in 2022. Unlike the OSV Ordinance – which prohibits oversized vehicle parking on certain streets – the TSPP Ordinance allows program participants (i.e., members of the unsheltered community) to park in designated spaces for up to 29 days while pursuing long-term housing opportunities. Thus, the primary impact of a substantial issue determination on the appeals is that opportunities for lawful habitation as part of the TSPP would be delayed for at least four individuals/families until the appeals are resolved.
3 The City agreed to not enforce the OSV ordinance citywide upon issuance of a preliminary injunction by the San Mateo County Superior Court based on the stipulation of the parties in the case of Geary et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21- cv-01780. The City resumed OSV ordinance enforcement citywide upon the launch of the TSPP program in July 2022.

The TSPP requires twice-monthly sewage servicing of program participants’ OSVs by a mobile dumping station. The staff report states “bimonthly” servicing which could be incorrectly interpreted to mean every two months. 4 Interactive OSV Ordinance parking location map.

10.h
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment H - City's Coorespondance to California Coastal Commission (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Substantial Issue Determinations for Appeal Nos. A-2-PAC-22-0031 and A-2-PAC-22-0031, City of Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program on Bradford Way and San Pedro Avenue (August 2022 Meeting, Agenda Items F7a and F7b)
August 8, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

The Planning Commission did not consider a CDP for the OSV Ordinance (which, as explained below, is not a “development”). It considered “developments” comprised of two designated oversized parking spaces on Bradford Way (Appeal No. A-2-PAC-22-0029) and two designated oversized vehicle parking spaces east of San Pedro Avenue (Appeal No. A-2-PAC-22-0031). Accordingly, the Commission lacks jurisdiction in this appeal to “approve, modify, or deny” the OSV Ordinance. (See Pub. Res. Code § 30625(a).)

2. The Appeals Do Not Raise a Substantial Issue
Regardless, the appeals do not present a substantial issue. When determining whether an appeal raises a substantial issue, the Commission may consider the following factors: (1) the degree of factual and legal support for the local government’s decision; (2) the extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the local government; (3) the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision; (4) the precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretations of its local coastal program; and (5) whether the appeal raises only local issues as opposed to those of regional or statewide importance. (14 CCR § 13115(c)(1)-(5).) The “developments” on appeal do not raise a substantial issue under any of these factors.

First, the CCC staff report admits that the “developments on appeal” – i.e., the reservation of two oversized vehicle parking spaces on Bradford Way and east of San Pedro Avenue – “should not significantly alter or affect existing access” and do not raise “substantial Coastal Act or LCP issue[s]” with respect to habitat impacts.

Concern over the OSV Ordinance’s impact on the “unsheltered community’s” ability to park oversized vehicles in the coastal zone is the sole basis for CCC staff’s recommendation that this factor weighs in favor of finding a substantial issue. However, the pending appeals challenge the City’s effort to reserve four public parking spaces in the Coastal Zone for the “unsheltered community.” The OSV Ordinance, which is not the subject of the appeals, is the law that restricts oversized vehicle parking in the City. As explained herein, the CCC lacks jurisdiction to review the OSV Ordinance in this appeal.

Second, the extent and scope of the “development” approved by the Planning Commission does not raise a substantial issue. As the CCC staff report admits, the Bradford Way “development is limited to two 30-foot by 10-foot designated parking spaces with a 10-foot no parking buffer at each end.”5 It “encompass[es] an 800 square-foot area on an already paved street where vehicle parking is currently occurring.” Similarly, the San Pedro “development is limited to two 30-foot by 10-foot designated parking spaces” occupying “in total . . . a 600 square-foot area on an already partially paved area where general public parking currently occurring.” The impact of these “developments” on coastal access is de minimis by any standard.

Third, as the CCC staff report admits, the developments on appeal will not have a significant impact on coastal resources. Indeed, the CCC staff reports admit that the proposed projects are located on paved streets/parking areas that already allow for public parking, and the nearest coastal access points and habitat areas are sufficiently far enough away that the City-approved developments are unlikely to affect those resources. Again, the OSV Ordinance is the sole basis for CCC staff report’s recommendation that this factor weighs in favor of finding a substantial issue. As explained above, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review the OSV Ordinance in this appeal.
5 The Bradford Way parking location would allocate approximately 70 feet of public right-of-way to the TSPP, not 80 feet as indicated in the staff report. The spaces total 60 linear feet with a condition of approval requiring a buffer area on either side of the spaces of at least 5 linear feet.

10.h
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment H - City's Coorespondance to California Coastal Commission (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Substantial Issue Determinations for Appeal Nos. A-2-PAC-22-0031 and A-2-PAC-22-0031, City of Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program on Bradford Way and San Pedro Avenue (August 2022 Meeting, Agenda Items F7a and F7b)
August 8, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

Fourth, the City’s approval of “developments” that reserve four existing parking spaces for oversized vehicle parking has no precedential value for its future interpretations of its Local Coastal Program. Despite it contrary conclusion, the CCC staff report offers no analysis or explanation for how the City’s approval of the developments has any precedential value whatsoever. The bare assertion of precedential value does not make it so.

Finally, the City’s approval of the “developments” on appeal does not raise issues of regional or statewide significance. Again, the OSV Ordinance is the sole basis for CCC staff’s recommendation that this factor weighs in favor of finding a substantial issue. As explained above, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review the OSV Ordinance in this appeal.

In this case, none of the factors weigh in favor of a determination that the appeals of the “developments” subject to the City-issued CDPs present a substantial issue. Accordingly, it would be an abuse of discretion for the CCC to find a substantial issue.

3. The Coastal Act Does Not Require the City to Obtain a CDP for the OSV Ordinance Finally, both CCC staff reports repeatedly allege that the City violated the Coastal Act by adopting the OSV Ordinance without obtaining a CDP. However, CCC staff failed to disclose that the City has disputed their assertion that the OSV Ordinance is a “development” that requires a CDP since 2019, and the Commission has taken no enforcement action against the City since the OSV Ordinance was adopted in 2020.

In December 2019, the City received correspondence regarding CCC staff’s position that the then-proposed OSV Ordinance was a “development” requiring a CDP because it would result in a “change in the density or intensity of use of land.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30106.)
The City disagreed. In an email dated January 23, 2020, the City explained that the OSV Ordinance is a traffic ordinance that merely prohibits oversized vehicles from parking at locations that present a public safety hazard.

Specifically, the OSV Ordinance prohibits oversized vehicles from parking (1) on public streets with a road width of less than forty (40) feet of width; (2) within one hundred (100) feet of any uncontrolled intersection; (3) at locations that encroach on an identified bicycle lane with defined boundaries; (4) on any public streets that restrict the travel lane to less than 10 feet wide; and (5) at locations that encroach on a public bus route. Land previously used for parking will continue to be available for parking. Because the OSV Ordinance does not “change the density or intensity of [the] use of land” it does not require a CDP.

CCC staff responded by reiterating their position that “implementation of the [OSV] ordinance will include changes to the intensity of use of land and access to water under the definition of development in both the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP.” Specifically, CCC staff argued that implementation of the OSV Ordinance would adversely impact access to the coast because “14 of the 21 access points outlined in the Access Component of the City’s certified LUP overlap with roads specified in the” Ordinance.

In response, the City carefully reviewed the access points set forth in the Access Component of the City’s certified local coastal land use plan (“LCLUP”) and other areas of the City’s certified LCLUP relating to parking. The City then compared those access points to the OSV Ordinance and determined that (1) 18 of the 21 access points identified in the City’s LCLUP provide direct access to the coast; and (2) oversized vehicle parking remains available on the street or in a public parking lot at all 18 of those access points.

10.h
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment H - City's Coorespondance to California Coastal Commission (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Substantial Issue Determinations for Appeal Nos. A-2-PAC-22-0031 and A-2-PAC-22-0031, City of Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program on Bradford Way and San Pedro Avenue (August 2022 Meeting, Agenda Items F7a and F7b)
August 8, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

The OSV Ordinance does not eliminate, increase the cost of, or otherwise make unavailable a single public parking space in the Coastal Zone. Moreover, while it restricts oversized vehicle parking in certain locations for safety reasons, the City ensured that parking for oversized vehicles remains available on a public street or in a public parking lot at all access points that provide direct access to the coast.6 Thus, the OSV Ordinance will not result in increased or decreased automobile or pedestrian traffic in the Coastal Zone. (Compare with Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 252 [erection of gate obstructing public access was “development” under Public Resources Code section 30106 because it decreased intensity of use of water].) Because the OSV Ordinance will not change the intensity of the use of land or water in the Coastal Zone, it is not a “development” that requires a CDP.

CCC staff’s suggestion that the Commission should consider whether the OSV Ordinance requires a CDP in the context of these appeals is improper and would deny the City due process. The OSV Ordinance was not the subject of the CDP proceedings addressed in the appeals. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to utilize the substantial issue and subsequent appeals processes as a preemptive component of Coastal Act enforcement.

Thank you for considering the City’s comments in this matter. Please contact me should you have any questions: [email protected] or (650) 738-7409.

Sincerely,
Kevin Woodhouse
City Manager
6 Interactive OSV Ordinance parking location map

10.h
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment H - City's Coorespondance to California Coastal Commission (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Introduction of an Ordinance to enact a new Article 52 “Outdoor Commercial Permits” and to amend Section 9-4.2308 “Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to conduct commercial activity outside of an enclosed structure (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017) and finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment by a Vote of 6-0 (with one absence) on September 6, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
• Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Enact a New Article 52 ‘Outdoor Commercial Permits’ and to Amend Section 9-4.2308 ‘Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures’ of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Create a Process for Commercial Businesses to Conduct Commercial Activity Outside of an Enclosed Structure and Finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017),” including the modification to insert “bars” as an eligible commercial use as listed in sec. 9-4.5204(b) including the modification to insert “bars” as an eligible commercial use as listed in sec. 9-4.5204(b) and refer the modified ordinance to Planning Commission for report and recommendation in accordance with Section 9-4.3507.
• Provide feedback to staff on the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission.
• Provide feedback to staff on the proposal to establish a deposit cap for processing an Outdoor Commercial Permit.

STAFF CONTACTS:

Bonny O’Connor, AICP, Senior Planner - (650) 738-7443
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> BACKGROUND:

On June 5, 2020, the City Manager, as Director of Emergency Services, issued an Emergency Order relating to the operation of outdoor commercial activities in the public right-of-way (ROW) and on private property during the period of local emergency due to COVID-19. This order, which was ratified by the City Council at the regular City Council meeting on June 8, 2020, enabled many businesses to survive the economic impacts of the pandemic.

Since June 2020, approximately 30 businesses have participated in this program, including approximately 20 restaurants and 10 other types of businesses. However, it is anticipated that this current outdoor activities program in Pacifica will expire under the Director of Emergency Services’ Emergency Order consistent with the State and County emergency orders. Therefore, the Council directed the City Manager to prioritize consideration of Municipal Code amendments related to outdoor commercial use.
11 Packet Pg. 393
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
On August 9, 2021 the City Council held a study session on the continuation of outdoor commercial activities. The Council provided feedback on several issues relevant to the development of a permanent ordinance including support for the use of public ROW, an inclusive range of covered businesses, a hybrid permitting approach (i.e., where businesses and residential neighbors are notified of the administrative decision regarding an outdoor activity request and may appeal the decision), recognition in the ordinance of existing outdoor activity licenses in some way so those licensees are not “starting from scratch”, a set distance shall be established for the outdoor activities permits and live entertainment shall be limited to specific days and hours.

Following the August 2021 meeting, staff obtained community feedback on the topic of outdoor commercial activities. On November 22, 2021, staff returned to City Council for a second study session to discuss the collected community data and to seek further Council direction. The Council provided feedback on several issues relevant to the development of a permanent ordinance including support that the parklets in the public ROW should be available to the public (not just business patrons), a “density” standard should be developed to address parking considerations, the City should develop pre-approved specifications and designs to improve outdoor activity aesthetics and ease permitting, that a flat fee should be established for the permits, and that staff shall conduct early conversations with the Coastal Commission regarding the ordinance.

During the August 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission, at the request of staff, continued the public hearing to consider the proposed Text Amendment TA122-22 to September 6, 2022.

On September 6, 2022 Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-019 recommending that the City Council approve the Outdoor Commercial Activity ordinance and Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines by a vote of 6-0 (with one absence).

DISCUSSION:

Outdoor Commercial Permit Ordinance
The proposed amendments would enact a new Article 52 to Chapter 4 (Zoning) of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to processing and issuance of Outdoor Commercial permits for existing commercial businesses. The proposed regulations were prepared based in part on the direction provided by City Council to date and other parklet ordinances from other jurisdictions. A summary of the ordinance is provided below.

Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this new article is to establish regulations to allow outdoor commercial use and non-permanent structures within the public ROW or outdoor areas for commercial activity as a tool for economic development and to encourage a sense of community. The ordinance would benefit commercial businesses by allowing a business, or a group of businesses, to conduct commercial activities outside of an enclosed structure and would provide a process to allow the business(es) to conduct commercial activities in the public ROW, with an encroachment permit, for a period of at least one year and possibly longer with renewal, which is not currently allowed. Under this ordinance, a business, or a group of businesses, may seek an Outdoor Commercial permit to establish a designated outdoor commercial area in one of the following scenarios:

1. Parking lane of a public right-of-way;

2. Sidewalk of a public right-of-way;

3. Off-street parking space areas on private property; and 11 Packet Pg. 394
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022

4. Existing paved or solid surface areas of private property which do not provide offstreet parking spaces The ordinance would not provide businesses with vested rights to conduct the outdoor uses and would require an annual renewal of the permit.

Definitions. The ordinance would include definition of key terms used throughout the ordinance including, but not limited to, “business sponsor,” “existing commercial business,” “designated outdoor commercial area,” “parking lane,“ and “permittee.” Application, Process, and Renewal. The ordinance would require a business sponsor to submit application materials and a fee to the Planning Department. For projects in the public right-of-way, application materials would require the applicant to show proof of neighborhood outreach using one or more of the following methods: certified mail, signed petition, or an open-house meeting. The Planning Director would approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application without a public hearing or public notification, based on the following findings:

1. The business sponsor meets the eligibility standards as detailed in section 9-

4.5205.

2. The proposed designated area and use for the outdoor commercial meets the applicable provisions in Article 52.

3. The proposed development for the Outdoor Commercial permit is consistent with the City’s adopted Outdoor Commercial Guidelines.

If approved, the Planning Director would send notice of approval via mail to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the designated outdoor commercial area, which would start a 10-day appeal period. The ordinance would limit the basis for an appeal on this permit to the findings for the permit. The permit would be valid for one year and the application process would be repeated for renewals.

Eligibility. The ordinance requires a business sponsor to have an existing business located in a zoning district that includes the use of the existing commercial business as a permitted use, or a conditional use with a valid use permit. For purposes of this ordinance, a commercial business may also include non-profit and religious organizations. An existing commercial business that is a nonconforming use is not eligible for an Outdoor Commercial permit. The designated area of the Outdoor Commercial permit must be within the same parcel where the operation of the business occurs within an enclosed structure or within adjacent public right-of-way from the parcel where the operation of the business occurs within an enclosed structure. When an Outdoor Commercial permit is issued to a permittee representing multiple businesses, the designated area of the Outdoor Commercial permit must be within the same parcel or within adjacent public right-of-way from the parcel where the operations of one of the businesses associated with the Outdoor Commercial permit occurs within an enclosed structure.

General Provisions. The ordinance would allow a maximum of one Outdoor Commercial permit per business sponsor. An Outdoor Commercial permit would only permit the uses and hours which are consistent with the principal business of the permittee. When an Outdoor Commercial permit is issued to a permittee representing multiple businesses, the Outdoor Commercial permit shall permit the use and hours of all the principal business uses associated with the Outdoor Commercial permit. Additionally, live entertainment with amplified and non-amplified sound between 4pm and 8pm on Thursday, and 12pm to 8pm on Friday through Sunday and Federal holidays. All sources of sound generated from a designated outdoor commercial area shall be limited so as not to be audible beyond 175 feet from the limits of the designated outdoor commercial area at all times. The location of 11 Packet Pg. 395
Pacifica City Council 4
September 26, 2022
the designated outdoor commercial area shall not block or impede access to utility or life and safety features, switches, or access points.

Additional Provisions for Public Right-of-Ways. Designated outdoor commercial areas in the public right-of-way, including sidewalk and on-street parking spaces, require the issuance of an encroachment permit issued by the City Engineer and would require entering into a separate license agreement with the City for use of the space. Designated outdoor commercial areas in the sidewalk must provide a minimum width of four feet to allow adequate safe passage along the sidewalk for pedestrian and wheelchair users of the sidewalk.

The ordinance would allow a maximum of one designated outdoor commercial area in the parking lane of the public right-of-way per block and a permit would be issued on a first come, first serve basis. The requirement for neighborhood outreach as discussed in the Application, Process, and Renewal section of the staff report above is intended to encourage commercial businesses to work together to make the parking lane the designated outdoor commercial area maximum work for everyone. A maximum of two parallel parking spaces or four perpendicular or angled parking spaces may be used for a designated outdoor commercial area in the public right-of-way and the designated outdoor commercial area in the parking lane must meet the detailed setbacks from the adjacent travel lane, parking spaces, and crosswalks.

Additional Provisions for Private Property. Designated outdoor commercial areas on private property may not block more than two off-street parking spaces or more than 10 percent of the total onsite parking spaces, whichever is greater. Multi-unit commercial developments would be responsible for allocating and distributing off-street parking spaces to business sponsors within their property.

Compliance with Other Regulations. This ordinance would not require a parking exception to be issued should any nonconformity to off-street parking be created as a result of the Outdoor Commercial permit. All development within the designated outdoor commercial areas will need to comply with the California Building Code. A business sponsor would not be able to seek a variance or other relief from the standards of this ordinance. If a business is unable to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, the business may seek other regulatory opportunities in the PMC to establish an outdoor use such as obtaining a use permit through the public hearing process.

Local Coastal Program (LCP). Planning staff consulted with California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff at various points in the preparation of the outdoor commercial ordinance and provided CCC staff an opportunity to review two draft versions of the ordinance and guidelines. CCC staff expressed that the parklets should be limited to existing rights-of-way, should comply with all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, and should not restrict beach access. CCC staff offered two suggestions in response to City staff’s desire to avoid or reduce the need for Coastal Development Permits (CDP) to support development covered under this ordinance. The first suggestion was to use the City’s Administrative CDP process for projects outside of the CCC appeal jurisdiction. While preparation of an Administration CDP can require less staff time to prepare compared to a standard CDP, the process still requires a public hearing and public noticing and therefore doesn’t substantially reduce the level of effort for applicants.

The second suggestion provided by CCC staff was to approve an umbrella CDP, which would cover a set number of outdoor commercial permits, in specified areas and that met the defined design standards. Commercial businesses in the coastal zone wishing to create an outdoor commercial space in accordance with the defined terms would not need to obtain 11 Packet Pg. 396
Pacifica City Council 5
September 26, 2022
further permits approval to address the Coastal Act. Planning staff recommends that the City pursue this option in a subsequent effort to the adoption and certification of this ordinance.

Planning staff would return at a later meeting to present terms for the umbrella CDP to Planning Commission for their approval. Further alternative options, such as amending the provisions of Article 43, Coastal Zone Combining District to exempt development associated with the outdoor commercial permit from a CDP would require a complex and timeconsuming effort to certify with the CCC. Furthermore, staff anticipates commencing a comprehensive zoning code update this fiscal year. As part of this update, staff will seek to establish a CDP waiver process that could waive development projects that have de minimis impacts on coastal resources from requiring a CDP. Staff could evaluate at that time what outdoor commercial permits may be eligible for a CDP waiver.

Legalization of Outdoor Commercial Activities. Outdoor commercial activity being conducted pursuant to an executed Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities and Encroachment Agreement as allowed under the City’s Emergency Order No. 2020-02, as amended prior to the effective date of this article, shall not be considered unlawful and nonconforming provided within six months of the effective date of this article the permittee obtains an Outdoor Commercial permit pursuant to the proposed ordinance.

Although over 30 applications were received to implement the executed Temporary COVID19 Outdoor Activities, as of April 6, 2022 only ten businesses were still currently operating outside. These business types included two bars/wine bars and eight restaurants. The designated outdoor commercial area being used included four businesses using the parking area of their private property, four businesses using the non-parking area of their private property, and two businesses using the parking lane of an existing street in the public rightof-way.

Staff Recommended Modification. Staff inadvertently left out the term “bars” in the list of eligible commercial uses provided in sec. 9-4.5204(b) as part of the ordinance presented to Planning Commission. While the PMC does not have a definition of a “bar,” staff identifies that at least one of the City’s current Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities Permittees would be interpreted as a bar, principally due to the sale of alcoholic beverages without corresponding bona fide food sales. In line with the Council’s direction for this ordinance to acknowledge existing participants of the Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities Permit and with recent new state regulations that provide the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control regulatory flexibility in how bars and restaurants can serve alcohol, including where they can serve, and how they can share spaces with other businesses, it was staff’s intention to include this use in the ordinance. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Planning Commission recommended ordinance with the revision to include “bars” in the list of eligible commercial uses provided in sec. 9-4.5204(b).

Since the addition of “bars” to the list of eligible commercial uses would be a modification of the proposed ordinance not previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearing, staff recommends that Council referred the modified ordinance to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation in accordance with sec. 9-4.3507 prior to City Council adoption of the ordinance.

Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines
Staff prepared Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines (Attachment A) to supplement the ordinance. This document was prepared to provide additional details of the standards for development within the designated outdoor commercial area. The Council may amend the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines from time to time without the need of a zoning text amendment. At this meeting, Council is being asked to review this document for comments and feedback. The Guidelines will be returned to Council for adoption at the same future hearing 11 Packet Pg. 397
Pacifica City Council 6
September 26, 2022
when the Outdoor Commercial Permit ordinance is being adopted to ensure the documents do not become inconsistent.

City Council supported the suggestion that the City prepare a set of pre-approved specifications for parklets designs. After the Outdoor Commercial Permit ordinance and Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines are adopted, staff will hire a designer to prepare the pre-approved specifications for parklet designs in accordance with the adopted provisions and guidelines.

Therefore, staff will follow up with updated Outdoor Commercial permit guidelines to include specifications for parklets at a later time. Timing for this follow-on activity will be dependent on available budget as discussed further in the Fiscal Impact section of the staff report.

Outdoor Commercial Permit Fee
Staff recommends using the City’s existing Planning / Engineering Hourly Rate line item in the Master Fee Schedule and establishing a maximum hourly deposit for this permit through adoption of a resolution to address Council’s desire to have a flat fee for the Outdoor Commercial Permit. This method would allow the City to establish a maximum cost for business owners using rates already established by the City without having to conduct a cost allocation study to establish a new fee line item in the Master Fee Schedule.

Staff suggests setting a maximum hourly deposit of 10 hours (equivalent to $2,380 under the FY 2022-2023 Master Fee Schedule) for Outdoor Commercial Permits application in the parking lane of a public ROW and a maximum hourly deposit of 6 hours (equivalent to $1,428 under the FY 2022-2023 Master Fee Schedule) for all other Outdoor Commercial Permits application types. The suggested maximums reflect staff’s assessment that the processing of an Outdoor Commercial Permit application in the parking lane of a public ROW will likely require more time to confirm compliance with the applicable provisions, require more interdepartmental coordination, and will be more likely to be appealed compared to the other Outdoor Commercial Permit types.

Additionally, these maximum deposit amounts are well below the deposits that the Planning Department would request from an applicant for a use permit which would range from $6,000 to $15,575 in most typical circumstances. Since the fee will be considered a deposit, any remaining funds not used for the processing of the permit would be returned to the applicant.

However, any costs that would exceed the maximum hourly deposit would be absorbed by the City. The cost to the City to process an appeal of the Administrator’s action to the Planning Commission would likely exceed the suggested maximum hourly deposits. Therefore, the cost to the City to process an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to the City Council would also exceed the suggested maximum hourly deposits. In an attempt to manage the number and extent of appeals filed, Section 9-4.5205(c) of the ordinance would limit a permit appeal to only the basis that the Administrator erred in determining the findings in Section 9-4.5205(a). This is intended to streamline the analysis required for any potential appeal which would have the effect of minimizing processing costs.

At this meeting, Council is being asked to comment and provide feedback on the fee proposal.

Once Council feedback on the fee question is received, staff will prepare a resolution for adoption at the same future hearing when the Outdoor Commercial Permit ordinance is being adopted.

The maximum fee suggested above would only cover the cost of processing the Outdoor Commercial permit. Staff would collect the standard deposits or fees related to subsequent approvals such as a CDP or an Encroachment Permit. As suggested above and supported by CCC staff, staff will process an umbrella CDP to ease the Coastal Zone permitting requirements 11 Packet Pg. 398
Pacifica City Council 7
September 26, 2022
for applicants that have an Outdoor Activity Permit application that matches the specifics of the umbrella CDP.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose to amend the ordinance or may refer the ordinance to the Planning Commission for further study.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The adoption of an outdoor commercial permit ordinance is in line with the following goal of the Council:
• “Fiscal Sustainability” includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities.

Additionally, this ordinance is consistent with the following Council priority:
• Continue to evaluate and implement Economic Development Initiatives focused on Business Assistance
FISCAL IMPACT:

As proposed, the cost of processing the Outdoor Commercial Permits would be borne by the applicant up to a maximum of 6 to 10 hours of the Planning / Engineering Hourly Rate depending on the type of Outdoor Commercial Permit. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed streamlined permitting process would exceed this cost. However, unique situations, unforeseen conflicts, or appeals to the permit could cause costs to exceed the maximum funds provided by the applicant and the City would absorb these costs, including City Attorney’s Office costs. These instances are not anticipated to be frequent and therefore this amount is not anticipated to be significant.

In relation to the follow-on preparation of pre-approved specifications for parklet designs, the adopted Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Planning Department budget included $25,000 for this ordinance update. Staff will determine if remaining funds from the work to-date will allow the pre-approved specifications work to proceed this fiscal year, or whether an additional budget allocation may be required at the mid-year budget update or during adoption of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines (DOCX) 11 Packet Pg. 399
Pacifica City Council 8
September 26, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5130)
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA TO ENACT A NEW ARTICLE 52 “OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL PERMITS” AND TO AMEND SECTION 9-4.2308 “COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES OUTSIDE STRUCTURES” OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 9 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO CONDUCT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF AN

ENCLOSED STRUCTURE AND FINDING THE TEXT AMENDMENT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (FILE NO. 2022-017; TEXT AMENDMENT TA-122-22).

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2020, the City Manager, as Director of Emergency Services, issued an Emergency Order relating to the operation of outdoor commercial activities in the public right of way and on private property during the period of local emergency due to COVID19. This order, which was ratified by the City Council at the regular City Council meeting on June 8, 2020, enabled many businesses to survive the economic impacts of the pandemic; and WHEREAS, since June of 2020, approximately 30 businesses have participated in the Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities program, including approximately 20 restaurants and 10 other types of businesses; and
WHEREAS, the Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities program will expire under the Director of Emergency Services’ Emergency Order consistent with the State and County emergency orders and Council directed the City Manager to prioritize consideration of Municipal Code amendments related to commercial outdoor activities; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2021 and November 22, 2021, the City Council held study sessions on the continuation of outdoor activities and provided direction to staff relevant to the development of a permanent ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica continued the duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-122-22 to September 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-122-22 (File No. 2022-017) on September 6, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. 2022-019 by a vote of 6 to 0 (with one absence) initiating and recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment TA-122-22; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance on , 2022, and introduced Ordinance No. ###.

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

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

Section 2. Enactment. Article 52, “Outdoor Commercial Permits” of Chapter 4, “Zoning” of Title 9, “Planning and Zoning” of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby enacted as follows:
11 Packet Pg. 400
Pacifica City Council 9
September 26, 2022
“Article 52. Outdoor Commercial Permit
Sec. 9-4.5200 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this article is to establish regulations to allow outdoor commercial use and nonpermanent structures within the public right-of-way or outdoor areas for commercial use on private properties. The intention of this article is to provide a tool for economic development and to encourages a sense of community.

Sec. 9-4.5201 Definitions
(a) "Administrator" shall mean the Planning Director or designee. (b) “Business sponsor” shall mean a single businessowner, a representative of business ownership of an existing commercial business who has submitted an application for an Outdoor Commercial permit on behalf of a single existing commercial business. A “business sponsor” may also include a representative of multiple existing commercial businesses that have submitted a joint application for a single Outdoor Commercial permit. A business shall only be associated with one business sponsor. (c) “Existing commercial business” shall mean an active commercial business with all valid and necessary licenses, permits, and approvals. For purposes of this article, a commercial business may also include non-profit and religious organizations. (d) “Designated Outdoor Commercial Area” shall mean the area defined for Outdoor Commercial Use under the Outdoor Commercial permit.
(e) “Furniture” shall mean tables, chairs, benches, and similar non-permanent amenities that facilitate commercial activities related to the existing commercial use. (f) “Outdoor Commercial Use” shall mean the conducting of commercial activity outside of an Enclosed Structure.
(g) “Parking lane” shall mean the area within a public right-of-way where on-street parking is permitted to occur. Parking lane shall not contain any bicycle or pedestrian paths. (h) “Parklet” shall mean a platform or similar level surface constructed within an existing paved parking lane that may accommodate furniture.
(i) “Permittee” shall mean a business sponsor who has been issued an Outdoor Commercial permit. In the instance when a business sponsor is a representative for more than one business, the business sponsor shall be considered the Permittee and shall be responsible for actions of the other businesses identified on the application. (j) “Public right-of-way” shall mean a strip of land that contains the public street, sidewalks, and utilities. The edge of the right-of-way is also the property line for the abutting property.
(k) “Enclosed structure” shall mean any structure having a roof and supported by walls on all elevations of the structure.

Sec. 9-4.5202 Outdoor commercial permit
No person or business shall undertake or establish a Commercial Use outside of an Enclosed Structure without first securing an Outdoor Commercial permit, unless the property has a valid use permit in accordance with Article 33 of this chapter or a development plan in accordance with Article 22 of this chapter or is otherwise permitted by law, and authorizes the specific Commercial Use to occur outside of an Enclosed Structure. An Outdoor Commercial permit may be issued for a Designated Outdoor Commercial Area in one of the following scenarios:
(1) Parking lane of a public right-of-way; (2) sidewalk of a public right-of-way; (3) off-street parking space areas on private property; and (4) existing paved or solid surface areas of private property which do not provide off-street parking spaces.

Sec. 9-4.5203 Permit application, term, and renewal.
11 Packet Pg. 401
Pacifica City Council 10 September 26, 2022
(a) The Business Sponsor must complete an application on a form provided by the City, as indicated by the Administrator. Such applications shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council.
(1) Parking Lane of Public Right-of-Way. Applications for an Outdoor Commercial permit in the Parking lane of public right-of-way shall require a Business Sponsor to conduct neighborhood outreach to inform other businesses on the block that the Business Sponsor is seeking an Outdoor Commercial permit in the public right-of-way. The neighborhood outreach shall identify that more than one business can be part of an application and that only one Designated Outdoor Commercial area in the parking lane of a public right-of-way is permitted per block. A final copy of the neighbor outreach material shall be provided to the City. The neighborhood outreach shall be conducted using one or more of the following methods:
(i) Written communication via certified mail to all of the businesses on the block. The Business Sponsor shall provide City with certified mail receipts.
(ii) A petition with signatures from at least two-thirds of the business owners or their designees on the block. Business Sponsor shall provide City with signed petition.
(iii) Hosting one or more open house meetings (virtual or in-person) which is attended by at least two-thirds of the business owners or their designees on the block. Business Sponsor shall provide City with an attendance list for the meeting(s).
(b) The Administrator shall solicit written comments and recommendations from the City Engineer for applications for the proposed Outdoor Commercial permit in the public right-of-way prior to approving or denying any application submitted pursuant to this article.
(c) An Outdoor Commercial permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance, unless suspended or revoked by the Administrator in accordance with Section 9-4.5211. (d) The Permittee may renew the permit annually, by submitting a renewal application and fee before, but not more than 90 days prior to the expiration of the Outdoor Commercial permit. The City shall consider applications for renewal using the provision in section 9-4.5205 and the Permittee may continue to operate in the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area until such time as the City either grants the renewal or denies the renewal of the Outdoor Commercial permit. If the Permittee does not apply for a renewal of the Outdoor Commercial permit prior to the one-year anniversary of issuance of the Outdoor Commercial permit, the Outdoor Commercial permit shall expire on the one year anniversary without further notice to the Permittee.

Sec. 9-4.5204 Eligibility
The Business Sponsor must demonstrate compliance with the following eligibility standards:
(a) The Existing Commercial Business must be located in a zoning district that includes the use of the Existing Commercial Business as a permitted use, or a conditional use with a valid use permit. An Existing Commercial Business that is a nonconforming use shall not be eligible for an Outdoor Commercial permit. (b) The following commercial uses shall be eligible for an Outdoor Commercial permit:
retail, retail restaurant, fast-food restaurant, restaurant, personal services, art galleries and instructional studios for dance and arts or crafts, offices, churches, and health/fitness club. All other commercial uses shall not be eligible for an Outdoor Commercial permit.
(c) Existing Commercial Businesses which operate within an Enclosed Structure are eligible to apply for Outdoor Commercial permit. Mobile businesses or businesses operating without an Enclosed Structure are not eligible for Outdoor Commercial 11 Packet Pg. 402
Pacifica City Council 11 September 26, 2022
permits. An Outdoor Commercial permit shall not be issued where the Commercial Use is proposed to occur on a vacant parcel.
(d) Except for Outdoor Commercial permits issued to multiple businesses, the Designated Area of the Outdoor Commercial permit must be within the same parcel where the operation of the Commercial Business occurs within an Enclosed Structure or within adjacent public right-of-way from the parcel where the operation of the business occurs within an Enclosed Structure. When an Outdoor Commercial permit is issued to a Permittee representing multiple businesses, the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area must be within the same parcel or within the public rightof-way adjacent to at least one of the businesses associated with the Outdoor Commercial permit. A public walkway may separate the parcel or public right-of-way from the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area.
(e) The proposed Designated Outdoor Commercial Area would comply with all applicable local, County and State permit and license requirements associated with the Outdoor Commercial use. An Existing Commercial Business that is prohibited to conduct business outdoors pursuant state or federal law shall not be eligible for an Outdoor Commercial permit.
(f) Proof of commercial general liability (or comprehensive) and property damage insurance including endorsements showing the City of Pacifica as an additional insured on the insurance policy and stating that the insurance is primary with regard to the City of Pacifica. It is the Business Sponsor’s responsibility to update insurance prior to permit expiration. Failure to do so will result in revocation of the outdoor commercial permit and/or encroachment permit.

Sec. 9-4.5205 Permit Approval
(a) The Administrator shall grant an Outdoor Commercial permit only upon determining that the following findings have been made:
(1) The Business Sponsor meets the eligibility standards as detailed in section 9-

4.5204.
(2) The proposed Designated Outdoor Commercial Area for the Outdoor Commercial Use meets the applicable provisions in this Article.
(3) The proposed development for the Outdoor Commercial permit is consistent with the City’s adopted Outdoor Commercial Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time.
(b) The Administrator may approve an application for Outdoor Commercial permit if the requirements in subdivision (a) have been met or the Administrator may deny the application for the Outdoor Commercial permit if the requirements in subdivision (a) cannot be met.
(c) Notice of any Outdoor Commercial permit approval pursuant to this Section shall be mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property where the proposed Outdoor Commercial Use will be located.

Appeals filed by any person aggrieved by this decision of the Administrator, shall be taken in the manner set forth in Section 9-4.3804 of Article 38 of this chapter. Basis of the appeal shall be limited to whether the Administrator erred in determining the findings in Section 9-

4.5205(a).
(d) Applications for renewals filed by Permittees shall follow the process detailed in subsection (a) through subsection (d) of this section.

Sec. 9-4.5206 General Provisions Applicable to All Permittees All Permittees shall comply with the following provisions during the term of the Outdoor Commercial permit:
(a) A maximum of one Outdoor Commercial permit shall be issued per Business Sponsor. A Permittee may have either a Designated Outdoor Commercial Area in the public right-ofway or may have a Designated Outdoor Commercial Area on private property. A Permittee 11 Packet Pg. 403
Pacifica City Council 12 September 26, 2022
may not have an Outdoor Commercial permit that applies to both private property and public right-of-way.
(b) An Outdoor Commercial permit shall only allow uses which are consistent with the principal business use of the Permittee. When an Outdoor Commercial permit is issued to a Permittee representing multiple businesses, the Outdoor Commercial permit shall allow the use of all the principal uses of the all the businesses associated with the Outdoor Commercial permit.
(c) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas may not unduly interfere with access by public employees and utility workers to meters, fire hydrants, fire department connections or valves, emergency shutoff switches associated with a fire or life safety features, manholes, or other objects (street hardware) in the public right-of-way or within public utility easements.
(d) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas shall contain ADA accessible features and/or route if ADA access is not available.
(e) Permittee shall comply with all applicable California Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) regulations regarding alcohol use within the designated area of the Outdoor Commercial permit. Permittees are solely responsible for securing a valid ABC license to allow/extend business operations within the designated area of the Outdoor Commercial permit. An Outdoor Commercial permit or encroachment permit does not constitute approval by the ABC or City for alcohol use.
(f) Permittee may offer live entertainment with amplified and non-amplified sound between 4pm and 8pm on Thursday, and 12pm to 8pm on Friday through Sunday and Federal holidays, as part of the Outdoor Commercial permit. All sources of sound generated from a designated outdoor commercial area shall be limited so as not to be audible beyond 175 feet from the limits of the designated outdoor commercial area at all times. (g) All of the following are prohibited in within the Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas:
(1) Signage which does not comply with Article 29 of this chapter; (2) Smoking and vaping; and
(3) Internal combustion generators.
(h) An Outdoor Commercial permit shall only permit Outdoor Commercial Uses which shall not exceed the normal hours of operation for the Permittee or any of the other businesses identified on the Outdoor Commercial permit, and shall be further limited to the hours of 7am to 10pm.
(i) No permanent structures shall be erected or constructed in the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area.

Sec. 9-4.5207 Provisions Applicable to Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Public Right-of-Way.
(a) In addition to the General Provisions in section 9-4.5206, Permittees for Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Public Right-of-Way shall comply with the following additional standards during the term of the Outdoor Commercial permit:
(1) Designated Outdoor Commercial areas in the Public Right-of-Way, including sidewalk and parking spaces, requires the issuance of an encroachment permit issued by the City. Each Permittee that obtains an encroachment permit shall be responsible for complying with all requirements in its encroachment permit. (2) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Public Right-of-Way must be open and accessible to the public at all times and signed accordingly. (3) For businesses on corner lots where commercial zoning abuts the property on one street and residential zoning abuts the property along the intersecting street, the Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Public Right-of-Way shall only be allowed along the street frontage of the property in line with the commercial zoning.
11 Packet Pg. 404
Pacifica City Council 13 September 26, 2022
(4) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Public Right-of-Way shall not block or interrupt bike lanes.
(5) Access to the Public Right-of-Way may be required by the City or utilities for maintenance, repairs, emergency events and/or other purposes. The City shall provide reasonable notice when feasible. The City shall not be responsible for business losses related to the loss of seating or business interruptions due to construction or loss related to removal of any built features. Furthermore, if the City and/or utility companies do need to do maintenance, it shall be the responsibility of the owner to remove any Furniture or other improvements necessary for access.
(6) Prior to issuance of the Permit, the Business Sponsor shall execute a License Agreement with the City for use of the Public Right-of-Way. (b) In addition to the standards detailed in subsection (a) of this section, designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Parking Lane of a Public Right-of-Way shall comply with the following additional standards:
(1) A maximum of two parallel parking spaces or four perpendicular or angled parking spaces may be used for a Designated Outdoor Commercial Area in the Public Right-of-Way.
(2) A maximum of one Designated Outdoor Commercial Area in the Parking Lane of the Public Right-of-Way shall be permitted on a segment of street between the abutting two intersecting streets and shall be issued on a first come, first serve basis.
(3) Driveways, red curbs, accessible parking spaces, and accessible paths of travel shall not be blocked or become inaccessible from the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area. The City will consider Designated Outdoor Commercial Area that block or impede access to green or white curbs or inactive driveways on a case-by-case basis.
(4) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the Parking Lane of the Public Rightof-Way shall meet the following setbacks:
(i) A 4-foot inner buffer is required between edge of Designated Outdoor Commercial Area and abutting parking spaces.
(ii) A 2-foot buffer is required when abutting a driveway, motorcycle parking, or a bicycle rack.
(iii) A 2-foot buffer is required between the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area and abutting travel lane.
(iv) Parklets located adjacent to controlled intersection crosswalks shall provide 25-foot setbacks from the nearest crosswalk. The City Engineer shall review and provide a necessary buffer for Parklets located adjacent to uncontrolled intersection crosswalks on a case-by-case basis. (5) The Designated Outdoor Commercial Area shall be no wider than the actual street frontage of the property of the commercial use unless the Outdoor Commercial permit is for multiple businesses and the Business Sponsor also represents abutting property owner.
(c) In addition to the standards detailed in subsection (a) of this section, Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the sidewalk of the Public Right-of-Way shall meet the following additional standards:
(1) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas in the sidewalk shall have adequate space to accommodate Furniture and shall provide adequate safe passage along the sidewalk for pedestrian and wheelchair users of the sidewalk. A minimum width of 4 feet shall be maintained along the sidewalk. No Furniture shall be placed or allowed to remain on any sidewalk that inhibits the minimum 4-foot passage.
(2) No structures may be constructed within the sidewalk. 11 Packet Pg. 405
Pacifica City Council 14 September 26, 2022
Sec. 9-4.5208 Provisions Applicable to Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas on Private Property.
(a) In addition to the General Provisions in section 9-4.5206, Permittees for Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas on Private Property shall comply with the following additional standards during the term of the Outdoor Commercial permit:
(1) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas shall be located within outdoor space contiguous to the Business Sponsor’s tenant space unless authorized by the property owner to use other space contiguous to commercial structures or walkways immediately adjacent to Enclosed Structures. All Outdoor Commercial Use conducted on private property must be done with consent of property owner. (2) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas shall be located on an existing level, paved or solid surface area. Business Sponsor may construct a platform or similar level surface which shall meet the standards provided for a Parklet in the Outdoor Commercial Guidelines.
(b) In addition to the standards detailed in subsection (a) of this section, designated Outdoor Commercial Area on private off-street parking areas shall meet the following standards:
(1) Designated Outdoor Commercial Areas on private property shall not make inaccessible or block more than two off-street parking spaces or more than 10 percent of the total onsite parking spaces, whichever is greater. (2) The City shall not be responsible for allocating and distributing off-street parking spaces to Business Sponsors within the provisions of subsection (1) on multi-unit commercial developments, as defined in PMC sec. 9-4.2902(ag). (3) Accessible parking space, accessible paths of travel, and electric vehicle charging stations shall not be blocked or become inaccessible from the establishment of the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area. (4) Development within the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area on private offstreet parking areas shall meet the following setbacks:
(i) A 2-foot inner buffer is required between edge of Designated Outdoor Commercial Area and abutting parking spaces.
(ii) A 2-foot buffer is required between when abutting to a driveway, motorcycle parking, or a bicycle rack.
(iii) A 1-foot buffer is required between the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area and abutting travel lane.

Sec. 9-4.5209. Compliance with other regulations.
(a) A parking exception pursuant to Article 28 of this Chapter shall not be required for any nonconformity created to off-street parking as a result of the approval of the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area for the duration of the Outdoor Commercial permit. Any expansion or alteration of the subject site unrelated to the Outdoor Commercial permit shall be subject to the provisions of Article 28 and Article 30 as applicable. (b) Nothing in this article shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Section 30000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code) or the City's certified local coastal program. (c) Development shall comply with all local building code requirements based on construction type.
(d) A Business Sponsor may not apply for a variance or other relief from the standards of this article. Businesses may pursue alternative permit or approval as otherwise provided in this chapter such as a use permit in accordance with section 9-4.2308 or a development plan amendment in accordance with Article 22, as appropriate to support a commercial use outside of a structure beyond the provisions of this article.

Sec. 9-4.5210 Legalization of outdoor commercial.
11 Packet Pg. 406
Pacifica City Council 15 September 26, 2022
(a) Any Outdoor Commercial Uses, which are not allowed or not consistent with an approval of an Outdoor Commercial permit or an approval as otherwise allowed in this chapter shall be considered unlawful and nonconforming.
(b) Unlawful and nonconforming Outdoor Commercial Uses may be legalized and considered conforming by complying with all provisions of this article. (c) Outdoor Commercial Uses authorized pursuant to an executed Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities and Encroachment Agreement as allowed under the City’s Emergency Order No. 2020-02, as amended prior to the effective date of this article, shall not be considered unlawful and nonconforming provided that within six (6) months of the effective date of this article the “Outdoor Activities” that were the subject of the Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Activities and Encroachment Agreement is approved through an Outdoor Commercial permit pursuant to this article.

Sec. 9-4.5211 Permit Amendment, Suspension, Revocation
(a) The Administrator may suspend, or revoke an Outdoor Commercial permit as follows:
(1) For Convenience. The Administrator may revoke the Outdoor Commercial permit for any reason at any time for the City’s convenience. (2) Non-Compliance. The Administrator may revoke or suspend the Outdoor Commercial permit due to the Permittee’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this article or the encroachment permit. In case a permit is suspended or revoked, the Administrator shall send notice to the Permittee of the violations of this article or the encroachment permit and advising of the potential for suspension period or revocation.
(3) For Health and Safety. The Administrator may suspend or revoke the Outdoor Commercial permit at any time if the City Manager, or designee, determines that the public health, safety or welfare warrant such action. (b) The Administrator may amend the Outdoor Commercial permit, as necessary, during the term of the Outdoor Commercial permit.
(c) Amendment, suspension, or revocation issued by the Administrator pursuant to this section will be effective ten business (10) days from the date appearing on the notice, unless some other time is identified in the notice.
(d) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Administrator to amend, suspend or revoke, may file an appeal along with the deposit of an appeal fee as established by resolution of City Council. Appeals filed by any person aggrieved by this decision of the Administrator shall be taken in the manner set forth in Section 9-4.3804 of Article 38 of this chapter.
(e) If the Administrator revokes the Outdoor Commercial permit and the decision is not appealed or upheld on appeal, the Permittee shall remove all structures, Parklets or Furniture in the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area within ten (10) business days after the final determination. The Permittee shall pay all costs associated with said removal.

Sec. 9-4.5212 Interruption
(a) If necessary, for utility repair and maintenance the Permittee shall remove any structures, Parklets, Furniture or other improvements that interfere with the necessary repair and maintenance. The City shall provide reasonable notice of the repair and/or maintenance, when feasible. The Permittee shall be responsible for any and all costs of removing, storing, and re-installing the structures, Parklets, Furniture and/or other improvements from the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area. (b) In the case of an emergency, the City may remove the structures, Parklets, Furniture or other improvements from the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area without prior notice to the Permittee. The Permittee shall be responsible for any and all costs of 11 Packet Pg. 407
Pacifica City Council 16 September 26, 2022
removing, storing, and re-installing the structures, Parklets, Furniture and/or other improvements from the Designated Outdoor Commercial Area.

Sec. 9-4.5213 No Vested Rights
Nothing in this article shall establish a vested right or ownership interest in the Public Right-of-Way. Approval of an Outdoor Commercial permit does not legalize any use or alter provisions for use permitted by law or contract, including, but not limited to, restrictions imposed by a local, County, or State regulations or licenses or in a lease agreement.

Sec. 9-4.5214. - Enforcement
The City may enforce this article by any means permitted by law, including, but not limited to, those penalty provisions set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code. The City Council may establish fines for violating this article by resolution.” Section 3. Amendment. Section 9-4.2308 “Commercial and industrial uses outside structures“ of Article 23, “General Provision and Exceptions” of Chapter 4, “Zoning” of Title 9, “Planning and Zoning” of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions shown in underline) as follows:
“Sec. 9-4.2308. Commercial and industrial uses outside structures. (a) All commercial and industrial uses conducted in any C or M District shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure unless a permit is obtained, as set forth in Article 33 of this chapter or Article 52 of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this section.” Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the text amendment would qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 “Existing Structures”, Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, and Class 4 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 “Minor Alterations to Land.” The text amendment would consist of the minor alteration of existing public or private developed areas resulting in a negligible expansion of existing use. The text amendment may result in the construction of small structures such as parklets. Furthermore, the text amendment may result in minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effect on the environment.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 7. Coastal Act Compliance. The City Council hereby certifies that the zoning text amendment described herein is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code 30000 et seq.). The zoning text amendment described herein shall take effect immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) if approved by the CCC as submitted. If the CCC certifies the zoning text 11 Packet Pg. 408
Pacifica City Council 17 September 26, 2022
amendment subject to modifications, final approval by the City Council shall be required prior to the zoning text amendment taking effect. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding any modifications proposed by the CCC prior to final City Council consideration and approval.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. For areas within the Coastal Zone, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s local coastal program pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code.
* * * * *
11 Packet Pg. 409
Pacifica City Council 18 September 26, 2022
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 11 Packet Pg. 410
Pacifica City Council 19 September 26, 2022
* * * * *
(ID # 5130) at 9/26/2022 5:00 PM City Council Regular Meeting 11 Packet Pg. 411

CITY OF PACIFICA

OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL PERMIT GUIDELINES
The City of Pacifica has established a program to allow existing commercial businesses an opportunity to extend their operations outdoors, including in the public right of way. All terms are as defined in Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.5201 and all regulations pertaining to Outdoor Commercial Permits are provided in Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.2500 et seq. and should be reviewed in conjunction with these Guidelines.

I. General standards
A. The designated outdoor commercial area cannot impede the flow of curbside drainage.

B. Structures and parklets plans shall be prepared by Licensed B or C-5 Contractor, built to approved plans by a general contractor, have a California Registered Structural or Civil Engineer certification
C. Space underneath and surrounding structures, parklets, or furniture shall be kept clean and shall be maintained free of debris and obstruction to allow for proper drainage.

D. Space heaters are permitted if they are an outdoor approved type, are located in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, and are located at least 10 feet from the edge of any umbrella canvas, any tree foliage, and any other combustible materials. Approved portable fire extinguishers complying with the California Fire Code shall be in place and accessible within 75 feet travel distance.

E. All wiring and electrical cords must be exterior rated, GFCI protected, and UL listed. Cords shall not extend above the City right‐of way. Permittees are not allowed to tap into existing City electrical connections. Electrical cables and extension cords shall be placed in a manner that does not create a tripping hazard.

F. All development must meet the California Building Code and any construction necessary to conduct the outdoor commercial use must obtain a building permit from the City of Pacifica when applicable.

G. Designated outdoor commercial areas shall be kept in a safe and clean condition at all times, free of debris, grime, and graffiti, and all landscaping shall be kept in good health or replaced as necessary.

H. All outdoor Furniture (tables, chairs, umbrellas, planters, fencing, etc.) shall be maintained in clean and working order. Furniture must be heavy enough to withstand high winds in order to protect guests and pedestrians. Furniture shall be stored inside or secured to prevent use during non-operation hours of the business sponsor. All furnishings may need to be stored inside the business from time to time to accommodate maintenance, cleaning, special events, or during periods of inclement or hazardous weather. Weights used to anchor fixtures and furnishings shall not create tripping hazards for pedestrians.

II. Additional standards for a designated outdoor commercial area in the parking lane of a public right-of-way
A. The designated outdoor commercial areas must be a defined space separating the space for pedestrians from bicyclists and vehicular traffic. These requirements include:

11.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines (5130 : Outdoor Commercial Permit Ordinance)

1. Perimeter wall or rail must be 3 feet minimum and 42 inches maximum height and must not obstruct views of traffic.

2. Perimeter wall or parklet ends and corners must be capable of withstanding 500 pounds of horizontal force. Confirmation of these requirements must be provided by a certified structural engineer.

3. Additional street side platform or wall reinforcement capable of withstanding 500 pounds of horizontal force must be placed a minimum of every 15 feet

4. Parking stops and reflective delineators must be placed at the traffic flow side of the Perimeter wall or parklet. Parking stop may not be required if perimeter wall or parklet is directly adjacent to sidewalk “bulb-out”.

B. If not proposing a parklet, the designated outdoor commercial areas in the parking lane of a public right-of-way can utilize the existing road. Painting the road, poured concrete, or loose particles such as sand or stone are not permitted.

C. Parklets shall meet the following Parklet Standards

1. Platform surface materials should be textured or treated with a non-skid coating to ensure a safe walking surface.

2. Paneled decking is preferred as it allows for easy access under the deck if needed.

3. Parklet floor load-bearing weight minimum is 100 pounds per square foot.

4. The deck of a parklet platform shall be flush with the sidewalk without a horizontal or vertical separation greater than ½ inch. Vertical separation between the deck of the parklet platform and the sidewalk shall be between ¼ inch and ½ inch high shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:4 (25%).

5. Bolting into the street or penetrating the surface of the road in anyway is prohibited. Bolts may penetrate the joint of the curb and sidewalk.

6. The parklet shall be an open design that allows for pedestrians on either side of the street to see into the parklet. Continuous opaque walls are not permitted.

7. The parklet should be designed as an extension of the sidewalk and should have multiple points of entry.

8. The design should include planting areas that utilize native, drought-tolerant plants.

Plantings can be used to discourage seating in areas such as the tops of walls.

9. Parklets and plantings shall be maintained in good condition, free of graffiti and litter.

Elements that are visually or structurally degraded shall be replaced expeditiously.

10. Overhead elements shall provide a minimum vertical clearance of 84” above the top of the platform. Structures shall have a maximum height of 108” (8.5’) as measured from the top of the platform.

11. There shall be no electrical fixtures or features within the parklet. Lighting may originate from the associated business and shall not shine into the street or otherwise interfere with vehicular travel. Battery or solar powered lighting elements are permitted within the designated open space area. Parklets must be illuminated to ensure safety but shall not cause glare for surrounding businesses or residents.

12. A six-inch wide minimum clear gutter space must be provided along the entire length of the parklet adjacent to the curb. Barrier adjacent to vehicle lane should incorporate two, sixinch clearance paths. (See Figure 1)

11.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines (5130 : Outdoor Commercial Permit Ordinance) Figure 1
Overhead View Side View
III. Additional standards for a designated outdoor commercial area on the sidewalk of a public rightof-way A. No structures or parklet shall be placed on the sidewalk.

B. Furniture may be placed within the designated outdoor commercial areas.

C. A minimum width of 4 feet shall be maintained along the sidewalk. No Furniture shall be placed or allowed to remain on any sidewalk that inhibits the minimum 4-foot passage.

D. Movable delineating barriers such as a fence or planters not more than 42 inches in height shall be placed to separate the designated sidewalk outdoor commercial area and furniture from the 4-foot sidewalk passageway.

IV. Additional standards for a designated outdoor commercial area on Private Property A. The designated outdoor commercial area cannot impede the flow of onsite drainage. Built facilities shall provide for proper drainage.

B. The designated outdoor commercial area must remain outside of necessary emergency vehicle access lanes.

C. Parklets on private property shall meet the applicable Parklet Standards listed in Section II.C, above.

D. Designated outdoor commercial areas on private off-street parking areas must have a defined space separating the space from vehicular traffic. These requirements include:

1. Perimeter wall or rail must be 3 feet minimum and 42 inches maximum height and must not obstruct views of vehicles.

2. Perimeter wall or parklet ends and corners must be capable of withstanding 500 pounds of horizontal force. Confirmation of these requirements must be provided by a certified structural engineer.

3. Additional street side platform or wall reinforcement capable of withstanding 500 pounds of horizontal force must be placed a minimum of every 15 feet

11.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines (5130 : Outdoor Commercial Permit Ordinance)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Update on Returning to In-Person City Council and City Committee / Commission Meetings RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning October 10, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 and continues to affirm the existence of the local emergency.

Beginning with the Special City Council Meeting held on March 18, 2020 for the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), all City Council, Committee and Commission meetings have been held via videoconference using a Zoom Meeting or Zoom Webinar platform with no physical meeting location open to the public. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow for public meetings to be held via teleconferenced meetings, either via audio or video or both, for all members of the body to participate from remote locations with no physical meeting location open to the public. Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021 and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act if the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency and certain conditions are met.

After having conducted City Council and City Committee / Commission meetings in a teleconference format with no physical location open to the public since March of 2020 due to the state and local emergency and health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, at the City 12 Packet Pg. 415
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Council approved the return to in-person City Council and City Committee and Commission meetings beginning March 14, 2022 after hearing an update based on statics from the County of San Mateo Health Officer indicating a decrease in case rates, lower health risks and higher vaccination rates for COVID-19.

Beginning with the March 14, 2022 City Council meeting, City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings returned to an in-person meeting format with a live broadcast by Pacific Coast Television on Comcast channel 26 and online Live Stream with a phone-in line to allow for participation by members of the body, as necessary, and members of the public to provide verbal input to the meeting, including public comments. The Zoom format was not utilized upon the return to in-person meetings. However, with the County of San Mateo Health Officer May 6, 2022 update regarding COVID-19 transmission rates, the County of San Mateo Health Officer reported that the County was experiencing an increase in COVID-19 incidence, transmission and hospitalizations as well as the vulnerability of certain segments of the population at that time, the City Council made findings at the City Council meeting held on May 23, 2022 to adopt Resolution No. 23-2022 making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings, if necessary, due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 and directed that City Council and City Committee and Commission meetings return to being conducted by teleconference with no physical location beginning with the June 13, 2022 City Council meeting. The City Council subsequently adopted Resolution Nos. 26-2022, 41-2022 and 46-2022 on June 13, 2022, July 11, 2022, and August 8, 2022, respectively, reaffirming the findings pursuant to AB 361 to continue to conduct public meetings via teleconference due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.

Current Analysis and COVID-19 Update:

While the state of emergency issued by the Governor remains in place, the update from the County of San Mateo Health Officer on September 13, 2022 informed the public that an updated bivalent COVID-19 booster that protects against the original COVID-19 virus strain and the Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 has been approved by the FDA and is now readily available in San Mateo County. This report from the Health Officer also indicated that the number of patients hospitalized in San Mateo County with COVID-19 was 21 as of September 12, 2022 compared to levels of between 30 and 60 for most of the summer, and that the decrease is encouraging. The Health Officer states that there is significantly less risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death compared to earlier periods of the pandemic due to the many tools available to reduce COVID-19 severity and in this context of increased community immunity against severe disease, our number of reported cases and hospitalizations categorize us in CDC’s Low community level.

Given these improvements, the City Manager recommends a return to in-person City Council meetings beginning with the October 10, 2022, City Council meeting followed by other Commission/Committee meetings in October. With this recommendation, City Council and Planning Commission meetings would be conducted in-person with a live broadcast by Pacific Coast Television on Comcast channel 26 and online Live Stream. As previously directed by the City Council, the City will continue its pilot-test of the additional alternative option for providing live public comment during the Council and Planning Commission meetings as a “phone-in for public comment” hybrid system, which allows for someone who is watching a streaming version of the meeting on television or computer to call in via telephone to make public comments. City staff implemented this system during the March through May 2022 period of in-person meetings 12 Packet Pg. 416
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
held by the City Council and Planning Commission. It should be noted that the phone-in option is susceptible to technology disruptions and/or delays and is not a guaranteed method of meeting participation. When meetings are conducted in-person, according to the Brown Act they can continue and are not required to be adjourned when such technological disruptions occur.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could delay the return to in-person meetings and continue meetings via teleconference with no physical location open to the public if findings can be made pursuant to AB 361 that health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 continue to exist. A new Resolution will need to be adopted at the October 10, 2022 City Council meeting making findings pursuant to AB 361 in order to continue to permit teleconferenced meetings.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” - includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
“Maintaining a Safe Community” - includes support our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness and prevention activities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
12 Packet Pg. 417

Pacifica City CouncilSeptember 26, 2022

Pacifica City Council
September 26, 2022