CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/24/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Introduction of an Ordinance to approve Rezoning RZ-205-20 to rezone from the R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) zoning district to the P-D (Planned-Development) zoning district, and to approve Development Plan DP-81-20 pursuant to the P-D zoning requirements; and introduction of an Ordinance to approve Development Agreement DA-3-20 that would, among other things, include ongoing use of the existing ballfields as a public recreational facility subject to certain limitations, which approvals would authorize the construction of seven multi-family residential buildings with a total of 70 residential housing units (including 11 housing units affordable at below-market rate, or BMR, rents), residential amenity buildings, off-street parking and circulation improvements, open space and landscaping, and recreational fields and amenities, at the former Oddstad Elementary School located at 930 Oddstad Boulevard (APN 023-672-600) (File No. 2020-009). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning, Development Plan, and Development Agreement, and approved Specific Plan SP173-20, Subdivision SUB-248-20, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, by a vote of 6-0 on March 20, 2023, subject to City Council approval of the Rezoning, Development Plan and Development Agreement. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) action:
Adoption of a Resolution to certify a final environmental impact report (EIR), including Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, due to significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would result from approval and construction of the project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(1) Move to adopt a Resolution to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, make the required findings and approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and,
(2) Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-205-20 and Development Plan DP-81-20 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan for the Pacifica School District workforce housing project to construct 70 residential units at 930 Oddstad Boulevard (APN 023-672-600) (File No. 2020-009)”; and (3) Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA3-20 to establish a development agreement between the Pacifica School District and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 930 Oddstad Boulevard (APN 023-672-600) (File No. 2020-009).” STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP, Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
1. Overview
The Pacifica School District (PSD) has submitted a development permit application and request Pacifica City Council 2
April 24, 2023
for certain legislative approvals to allow demolition of the former Oddstad School and construction of an 81,208-square foot (sf) residential development with 70 total units distributed over seven residential buildings. At least 45 of the units would be workforce housing for PSD employees or employees of another qualifying government agency. In addition the project would construct 11 below-market rate (BMR) units consistent with the City’s inclusionary zoning requirements. The project would also include a residents commons, property management office, and a public restroom/changing room on the 325,479-sf (7.47-acre) site. The project would include minor improvements to drainage and turf conditions at the adjacent ballfields with continued public access guaranteed during the term of a proposed development agreement, subject to certain limitations. Additional details related to the proposed project can be found in the Planning Commission agenda packet included as Attachment D. The Planning Commission meeting minutes from March 20 are included as Attachment E.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 20, 2023, to consider the project. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2023- 006 (Attachment F) by a vote of 6-0 with one absence to take the following actions:
A. Certify a final environmental impact report (EIR) including findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations due to significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would result from the project.
B. Approve Specific Plan SP-173-20, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-248-20, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization (“Development Permits”).
C. Recommend City Council approval of Development Agreement DA-3-20, Rezoning RZ205-20, and Development Plan DP-81-20 (“Legislative Approvals”) The approval of the Development Permits included conditions of approval prepared by staff, and additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission to enhance the façade of Building C2, to ensure a sufficient emergency vehicle access easement (EVAE) on the project site, and to incorporate standing seam metal roofs on the community amenity buildings. The Planning Commission also made a minor revision to the development agreement to incorporate a prior agreement between the City and Pacifica School District to construct all below-market rate (BMR) housing units in Phase 1 of the project (this provision was inadvertently omitted in the draft development agreement presented to the Planning Commission). Additional Commission edits to the final EIR appear in a later section of this report.
The Planning Commission’s action to approve the Development Permits is now final because no appeal was filed. However, the Planning Commission action is contingent on City Council approval of the Legislative Approvals. Consideration of the Legislative Approvals and the project EIR is the subject of this agenda item.
2. Required Legislative Approvals
The project requires approval of three legislative approvals, each described more fully in the following sections.
A. Rezoning RZ-205-20 to rezone the project site to the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District
The project site is currently zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential). The R-1 zoning district allows one single-family dwelling unit per lot (minimum 5,000 sf lot area). The Planning Commission has recommended rezoning of the project site to the P-D zoning district to allow for more flexible development standards for a multi-family housing project. The rezoning to P-D would allow more than one dwelling unit per lot which is necessary to enable the multi-family housing project. Rezoning to P-D would also allow the City Council to precisely control the Pacifica City Council 3
April 24, 2023
allowable uses on the project site in a way that is not possible with the current R-1 zoning district’s list of allowable uses.
The General Plan designates the project site as “Low Density Residential.” The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation provides for development of three to nine dwelling units per gross acre. The LDR land use designation regulates use and density only, and not a specific housing type. The zoning applicable to a site further defines the allowable housing types and the LDR is most often associated with the R-1 zoning district in Pacifica. The density of the proposed development, nine dwelling units per gross acre, is within the allowable density range for the LDR land use designation.1
The City Council is not bound by specific findings when considering whether to approve a rezoning. The City Council may base its action on factors pertaining to general health, safety, and welfare of the community, as well as other relevant factors such as neighborhood narratives, policies, and programs in the existing General Plan. The City Council may also consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, which in this specific case was to approve the rezoning. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is described in greater detail below.
B. Development Plan DP-81-20 to authorize land uses on the project site Each P-D zoning district must include a development plan to specify the allowable uses therein.
In essence, the development plan is the site-specific zoning approval for a P-D site. The proposed development plan would authorize construction of 70 multi-family dwelling units on the project site with associated improvements including off-street parking areas. It would also authorize a park to operate on the existing ballfields at the southern portion of the project site.
Land uses surrounding the project site consist of single-family residential uses to the north, west and south. Frontierland Park is located to the east. To the project’s immediate south is a facility with youth programming operated by the Boys & Girls Club. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the site and surrounding uses. The density and intensity of residential development on the project site would be consistent with surrounding single-family residential areas in terms of LDR density.
1 The density of the proposed development is rounded down to 9 from 9.3. The method for rounding down is consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2312 – Rounding of numbers in calculating density. Fractional numbers from 0.1 through 0.4 for density calculations shall be rounded down to the next whole number.
Pacifica City Council 4
April 24, 2023
Figure 1: Subject Site.
Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2204, development regulations for a PD zoning district shall be guided by the regulations of the zoning district most similar in nature and function to the proposed P-D zoning district use. The City’s residential zoning standards are primarily based on building type, with R-1 zoning allowing single-family residences, R-2 (TwoFamily Residential) allowing two-unit buildings (e.g., duplexes), and R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) allowing three or more residential units in the same building. Therefore, for purposes of the development regulations for the proposed P-D zoning district, the R-3 zoning district’s development standards are the most similar in nature and function to the proposed project because they are designed to allow development of multi-family residential uses such as the multi-unit buildings proposed with the project.
The City Council must make the findings provided in PMC Section 9-4.2206 in order to approve a development plan. The City Council may also consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, which in this specific case was to approve the development plan. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is described in greater detail below.
C. Development Agreement DA-3-20 to provide for public and private benefits as part of the project
The City’s Development Agreement Procedure Ordinance (PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 50) authorizes the City Council to approve a development agreement to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic costs of development.
The applicant has proposed a development agreement to establish certain developer benefits and public benefits. These include, but are not limited to, developer benefits including vested rights to proceed with development under the City’s current land use regulations, which development must be completed within 15 years, subject to force majeure delay. Public benefits include, but are not limited to, public use of the 4.9-acre ballfields for at least 25 years, Pacifica City Council 5
April 24, 2023
field improvements (drainage improvements, parking lot sealing and striping, basketball hoop installation), construction of a public building with restrooms and changing rooms, ongoing maintenance of the fields and facilities by the applicant for at least 20 years, and City right of ongoing use of 1.4 acres of the 4.9-acre fields or a first right of offer to purchase an ownership interest in 1.4 acres of the 4.9-acre fields after 20 years.
The City Council must consider the factors provided in PMC Section 9-4.5007 in order to approve a development agreement. The City Council may also consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, which in this specific case was to approve the development agreement. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is described in greater detail below.
3. Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve the Legislative Approvals The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the Legislative Approvals on March 20, 2023. The following sections refer to the Planning Commission’s recommendation in relation to the required findings and/or relevant considerations for approval of each Legislative Approval.
A. Rezoning RZ-205-20 to rezone the project site to the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve Rezoning RZ-205-20 is set forth in full beginning on p. 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-006 (Attachment F). The recommendation is based on factors related to General Plan consistency, suitability for development of the existing lot, and compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood and existing zoning.
B. Development Plan DP-81-20 to authorize land uses on the project site The Planning Commission made the following findings, as required by Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.2206 and fully set forth in beginning on p. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-006 (Attachment F), to recommend City Council approval of Development Plan DP-81-20:
i. The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant;
ii. Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained;
iii. The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts;
iv. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District; v. Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area; vi. The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in Pacifica City Council 6
April 24, 2023
coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified;
vii. The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines; and viii. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.
C. Development Agreement DA-3-20 to provide for public and private benefits as part of the project
Section 9-4.5007 of the PMC states that the City Council shall give consideration to the following factors when reviewing a development agreement, which factors were reviewed and considered in the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and fully set forth beginning on p. 13 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-006 (Attachment F):
i. Other pending applications and approved projects.
ii. The traffic, parking, public service, visual, and other impacts of the proposed development project upon abutting properties and the community. iii. Ability of the applicant to address public facility needs and financing obligations. iv. The relationship of the project to the City's growth management program. v. The provisions included, if any, for reservation, dedication, or improvement of land for public purposes or accessibility to the public. vi. The type and magnitude of the project's economic effects to the City of Pacifica, and of its contribution, if any, toward meeting the City's housing needs, including affordable housing.
vii. Any other comparable, relevant factor or factors.
4. City Council’s Role
The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the Development Permits required for construction of the proposed project. Because no appeal was filed to challenge the Planning Commission’s action, approval of the Development Permits is final, contingent on City Council approval of the Legislative Approvals, which include a proposed rezoning, development plan, and development agreement. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Legislative Approvals.
The City Council in its capacity as the legislative body of the City and in the exercise of its police power under the California Constitution is required to approve legislative actions on behalf of the City. Except where specified in the Pacifica Municipal Code, the City Council is not bound by specific findings when approving legislative items, and may consider all information relevant to the public health, safety, and welfare of persons within the City.
Staff recommends City Council approval of the Legislative Actions based on the findings set forth in the attached Ordinances, which findings were made by the Planning Commission.
Pacifica City Council 7
April 24, 2023
5. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review
The City Council must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to any action to approve the Legislative Approvals. Compliance with CEQA requires the identification of potential significant impacts on the environment and identification of measures to mitigate any such effects.
The City, as the lead agency for CEQA compliance for the proposed project, has prepared an environmental impact report (EIR). The City published the Notice of Preparation for the EIR on October 22, 2021, and held a Scoping Meeting on November 4, 2021. On November 23, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (DEIR). Publication of the Notice of Availability began a forty-five (45) day public review period, concluding January 9, 2023. During this period, the DEIR was available for review and comment to the community, local, State, federal agencies, and interested organizations. The DEIR is included as Attachment G and is available at: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/planning/environmental-documents.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G sets forth a set of questions to guide evaluation of potential environmental impacts across a variety of resource areas. The DEIR found that all impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, with the exception of Transportation and Traffic, specifically Vehicle Miles Traveled, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation measures were still applied to this resource area to reduce the impacts as much as possible, as required by CEQA.
Resource areas requiring mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation, as shown in Table 1 below. Resource areas listed as less-than-significant or no impact do not require mitigation. Resource areas requiring mitigation are noted below.
TABLE 1: Resource Area Impact Summary
Less-than-Significant or No
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Aesthetics Transportation
Energy Air Quality
Hydrology and Water Quality Biological Resources
Land Use Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
Mineral Resources Geology and Soils
Population and Housing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Public Services Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Recreation Noise
Wildfire
The PSD intends to lease all 70 units to School District employees if sufficient demand exists among its employees. For the purposes of the CEQA analysis, the City conservatively assumed the 70-unit workforce housing project would consist of 25 market rate units and 45 workforce units. Of the 45 workforce housing units, 44 were assumed to be leased to School District employees, and one below market rate unit leased to an on-site property manager. While it is the School District’s goal to lease all 70 units to School District employees, the School District’s financing strategy includes the possibility of leasing units to market rate tenants to subsidize the Pacifica City Council 8
April 24, 2023
workforce housing units. To evaluate the highest possible degree of impact, the 45 workforce housing – 25 market rate scenario was studied, which included an assumption that occupants of the 25 market rate units may travel daily to employment outside of Pacifica, resulting in higher vehicle miles traveled, whereas at least one of the workforce housing occupants would have lesser vehicle miles traveled to school sites within Pacifica. This is further described below under Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact:
Transportation and Traffic
The EIR determined there would be a significant unavoidable impact for traffic and transportation specifically related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is a measure for how much an individual or household drives a private vehicle. The usage of VMT in environmental analysis aligns with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the number of miles driven by individual persons.
As described above, the project proposes 45 workforce housing units, 44 of which will be leased to PSD employees, and one of which will be leased to an on-site property manager. The remaining 25 units will be leased to market rate tenants. The traffic analysis assumes each unit will be occupied by two driving-age tenants for a total driving population of 140 tenants for the purposes of calculating VMT.
The Traffic Analysis categorized occupants as:
• PSD Employees in School District-restricted units
• Non-PSD Employees in School District-restricted units • Market rate tenants
• On-site property manager
A VMT per capita value was assigned to each category. The VMT per capita for the project was estimated to be 14.69. The existing citywide VMT per capita is 15.81, so the average for the project would need to be 13.44 to meet the threshold of 15 percent below the existing citywide average. Since VMT of 14.69 exceeds the 13.44 VMT threshold, the VMT impacts of the project were determined to be significant.
Mitigation measures include implementing the following Transportation Demand Management strategies:
f. Safe Routes to School. Pursue grants to fund pedestrian and bicycle improvements around PSD schools to increase safety for students and staff walking and bicycling. g. Install Bike Racks. Identify PSD schools where more bicycle racks are needed. Once identified, install as needed.
h. Install E-bike Charging Stations. Install e-bike charging systems in secure bike parking facilities at PSD schools.
i. Install Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. To encourage and support electric vehicle ownership by project residents, install EV charging stations at PSD schools. j. Samtrans Flex Services. Continue to partner with Samtrans to establish fixed-route services to PSD schools. Coordinate with Samtrans on possible flex services (such as dial-a-ride) to serve schools with lower demand.
k. Shuttle Services. Partner with the Jefferson Union School District to fund shuttle services to Pacifica schools.
Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation. The impacts identified under the following resource areas have mitigations which are further detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Pacifica City Council 9
April 24, 2023
Reporting Program for the 930 Oddstad Boulevard project. Sections of the DEIR are identified for each resource area to obtain more information.
Aesthetics (Section 4.1)
The project would implement mitigation measures to avoid impacts to aesthetics relating to degrading the visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings nor would the project conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The mitigation requires compliance with tree protection measures identified in the Arborist Report as well as recommended replacement trees identified in the Tree Replacement Memo which will help ensure protection of the quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Compliance with applicable Design Guidelines and implementation of the tree protection measures and usage of recommended replacement trees would ensure that development of the proposed project would not degrade the visual quality or character of the area and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Air Quality (Section 4.2)
The project would implement mitigation measures to avoid impacts to air quality relating to construction dust and emissions from construction equipment. Construction activities, particularly during demolition, site preparation, operation of heavy equipment, delivery of materials, worker travel, and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices, such as watering exposed surfaces, covering loose materials in haul trucks, and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces, are implemented to reduce the emissions. Additionally, to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions, the use of heavy equipment larger than 50 horsepower should be limited or when possible electric-powered equipment should be used when possible.
Biological Resources (Section 4.3)
The project would implement mitigation measures to avoid impacts to dusky-footed woodrats, the obscure bumble bee, red-legged frogs, bats, nesting migratory birds, and seasonal wetlands that were created due to a damaged concrete drainage ditch. The mitigation measures include creating non-disturbance buffers around active nesting sites or middens, consulting with qualified biologists for possible relocation of certain species, and planting foraging habitat for obscure bumble bees such as California native flower plants. For seasonal wetlands, best management practices should be implemented prior to earthwork. This includes construction exclusion zones to protect native wetland plants or a split rail fence along the boundary between the recreational field, seasonal wetland, and concrete drainage. Where native plants are removed, altered or destroyed, native plants shall be planted at a 1:1 replacement ratio. With incorporation of these measures, the project would result in a less than significant impacts to dusky-footed woodrats, obscure bumble bees, red-legged frogs, bats, nesting migratory birds and seasonal wetlands.
Cultural Resources (Section 4.4)
Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could disturb previously unrecorded archaeological resources or human remains due to ground disturbance associated with construction activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid or reduce impacts due to inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, archaeological resources and/or human remains that may be present on the site, which includes work stoppage and tribal consultation if resources are discovered. These measures would reduce potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological resources at the site by identifying them prior to construction and developing alternative project designs, or treatment plans to avoid or minimize impacts to resources.
Geology and Soils (Section 4.5)
Pacifica City Council 10 April 24, 2023
As with the larger San Francisco Bay Area, the project site is in a region of high seismicity.
Additionally, the existing soil conditions, including 35 feet of fill underlying the site, have the potential for geologic and soil instability. The seismicity and geologic and soil instability could be mitigated through the implementation of geotechnical recommendations in the project design.
The demolition and grading activity which could result in soil erosion or loss of top soil could be mitigated by compliance with the City’s stormwater control measures and the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. While the preliminary geotechnical report determined the project site to be geotechnically and geologically feasible for future development, the project site would still be subject to risks associated with local soils. A mitigation measure requiring a construction level geotechnical evaluation will be required and all standards and recommended engineering measures to mitigate for liquefaction, expansive soils and other local soil constraints must be incorporated into the project.
There are no major or unique paleontological resources known to exist in the city, and the likelihood of encountering unique paleontological resources is low. However, development of the project could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously unknown or undiscovered paleontological resources. To reduce this potential impact to unique paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level, if during construction activities any discovery is made, ground disturbing activities shall halt, and the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the discovery and make recommendations.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 4.6)
GHG emissions associated with construction of the project would be less than significant through the preparation and implementation of a GHG reduction plan that uses at least 10 percent local building materials and reuses and recycles at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition material.
Hazards and Hazardous Waste (Section 4.7)
Based on the age of the school building and shed, there is a potential for asbestos and leadbased paint exposure during construction activities, such as demolition of the existing structures. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations during construction and disposal of contaminated materials.
Performing a survey to identify asbestos-containing materials and lead based paint and incorporating findings into a report that includes appropriate removal and disposal protocols if such materials are found, would result in a less than significant impact.
Noise (Section 4.10)
Noise from project construction and noise from project operation would be reduced to a less than significant impact with implementation of a mitigation measure requiring best management practices, but not limited to, the following: limiting construction hours, employing newer construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devises, staging noisegenerating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors, substituting nail guns for manual hammering where feasible, notifying adjacent residences early and frequently of construction activities, and utilizing a noise disturbance coordinator.
Transportation and Circulation (Section 4.13)
The project would implement mitigation measures to avoid impacts to site lines such as maintaining low-lying shrubs and removing branches less than seven feet in height from the ground level at locations close to driveways and prohibiting parking south of the project driveway along Oddstad Boulevard for a distance of at least 30 feet.
Public Comment on the Draft EIR
One public comment letter was received (Attachment H) which centered on traffic around Pacifica City Council 11 April 24, 2023
Oddstad Boulevard from tenants leaving the project site. No comments were received from public agencies. All comments were responded to in the Final EIR (FEIR) discussed below and clarifying text revisions were made where necessary.
Final EIR
Following the conclusion of the public comment period, the City prepared a FEIR in accordance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR was published on March 15, 2023. The FEIR is included as Attachment I and is available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/planning/environmental-documents.
The FEIR includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that describes mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels where possible. The Planning Commission made minor edits to the MMRP that are included in the attachment to this staff report in redline to demonstrate where changes were made2. The changes to the MMRP to clarify the responsible party and period of the rainy season for two biological resources mitigation measures did not change the conclusions in the final EIR or introduce significant new information, and merely amplified and clarified the conclusions already contained in the final EIR.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations When there are significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with a project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable and the lead agency may still approve the project.
The City is required to state the specific reasons to support its action based on the FEIR or other information in the record in a document is called a “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” which is included in Attachment J. The Statement of Overriding Considerations found that multiple project benefits, including but not limited to the removal of aging facilities and site improvements, parkland access for the public, enhanced recruitment and retention of teachers and other staff by the Pacifica School District, construction of belowmarket rate (BMR) housing, and construction of housing generally to make progress towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations, were cumulatively and individually significant enough to justify approval of the project despite the significant and unavoidable environmental impact identified in the EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies 26 mitigation measures related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation and Traffic. The MMRP is incorporated with the FEIR as indicated above and is included in Attachment I. Implementation of the MMRP will be monitored by City staff to reduce potential impacts of the implementation of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA.
Staff recommends that the City Council certify the FEIR, make the required Findings of Fact, and approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2 Note the FEIR posted on the City’s Environmental Documents page does not include these minor edits to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) made by the Planning Commission.
Pacifica City Council 12 April 24, 2023
6. Public Comments
Five written public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on March 20, 2023 (Attachment K). Verbal comments made at the March 20 Planning Commission public hearing are summarized in the meeting minutes included in Attachment E.
In addition, one written public comment was received during the public comment period on the DEIR as described above.
Additional written public comments received prior to the City Council agenda publication are included in Attachment L.
7. Staff Analysis and Recommendation
The Planning Commission has considered the proposed project, including both the Development Permits and Legislative Approvals. The Planning Commission approved the Development Permits with additional conditions of approval addressing architecture and emergency vehicle access, and recommended City Council approval of the Legislative Approvals with a clarification regarding the timing of BMR unit construction. The Planning Commission also certified the final EIR with minor revisions to the MMRP to clarify its requirements.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the CEQA information presented in this report, and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support approval of the Legislative Approvals. Note that without approval of the Legislative Approvals, the Development Permits approved by the Planning Commission will not have force or effect, and the project cannot be constructed or operated.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council may deny the requested Legislative Approvals, which would have the effect of denying the overall project including the Development Permits approved by the Planning Commission.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Review of the proposed Resolution and Ordinances is not directly associated with a City Council goal or an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. Serving in a legislative capacity is a routine function of the City Council as part of its normal governance process as established in the Pacifica Municipal Code and in State Law.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact. Processing costs for this item are paid by the applicant.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR (DOCX) Attachment B - Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (DOCX) Attachment C - Draft Ordinance Approving Development Agreement (DOCX) Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - March 20, 2023 (PDF) Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 20, 2023 (PDF) Attachment F - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-006 (PDF) Pacifica City Council 13 April 24, 2023
Attachment G - Draft EIR (PDF)
Attachment H - Comment letter from DEIR (PDF)
Attachment I - Final EIR (with redline edits by Planning Commission) (PDF) Attachment J - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (PDF) Attachment K - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (PDF)
Attachment L - Public Comments Prior to City Council Agenda Publication(PDF)