CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 to demolish and replace portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site, and construct a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) (File No. 2022-007); and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined 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:
Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Senior Planner
(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 June 13, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2023-009 by a vote of 3- 1 1 approving the demolition and replacement of portions of the existing North Coast County Water District (“NCCWD”) Headquarters site, and construction of a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) (“Project”), finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving, with conditions, Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 (“Development Permits”) (Attachment B). The staff report and minutes of the Planning Commission hearing on June 13, 2023, are included as Attachments C and D, respectively. The project plans are included as Attachment E.
1 Chair Hauser, Vice Chair Leal, Commissioner Ferguson, and Commissioner Berman were determined to have conflicts of interest under the Political Reform Act. In order to ensure the item had a quorum, the rule of necessity required one commissioner with a conflict to participate, as selected by a random draw.
Commissioner Berman was selected to participate.
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
As background, the existing on-street parking abutting the project site allows six (6) spaces on Brighton Road, seven (7) spaces on Francisco Boulevard, and two (2) spaces on Clarendon Road for a total of 15 spaces. NCCWD proposed the following:
• angled parking on Francisco Boulevard
• closing the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard
• adding a third driveway on Clarendon Road
The resulting changes provides for a total of 16 spaces along the project frontage, with parking on Brighton Road to remain as is, three (3) more spaces on Francisco Boulevard, and the removal of two (2) spaces on Clarendon Road for the proposed third driveway.
The Planning Commission conditioned the project to prohibit angled parking on Francisco Boulevard and keep the existing driveways on Clarendon Road. The Project, as approved by the Planning Commission, would provide for 16 on-street spaces.2 The Planning Commission added Condition of Approval No. 51, which requires the NCCWD to coordinate with SamTrans to temporarily relocate the Clarendon Road bus stop prior to the start of construction and requires written approval from the City Engineer, CalTrans, and any other necessary agency, prior to the permanent relocation of the Clarendon Road bus stop. Condition of Approval No. 51 accounts for the fact if the permanent relocation of the Clarendon Road bus stop is approved by SamTrans and other regulatory agencies, this will allow the addition of two (2) spaces to the existing parking on Clarendon Road, resulting in a total of 18 parking spaces along the Project frontage. The two additional on-street parking spaces result from the elimination of existing red curb “no parking” areas needed to facilitate safe servicing of the existing bus stop. This project design, if eventually implemented pending all required approvals for permanent relocation of the existing bus stop, would result in the greatest number on-street parking spaces from construction of the Project.
B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
On June 22, 2023, NCCWD (hereafter “Appellant”) timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission imposition of Conditions No. 11, No. 12, No. 21, No. 24, and No. 32 on the approval of the Development Permits 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.
Basis 1. Condition No. 11 should be removed or revised.
Appellant challenges the Planning Commission’s decision to require Condition of Approval No. 11, which requires Appellant to submit a request to the City Manager’s Office to relocate the Temporary Safe Parking Program (“TSPP”) space, located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, to another location prior to the commencement of construction and preparation activities. The Appellant argues that they do not have the power to move the TSPP space, and accordingly, the conditions should be revised such that the City should relocate the space by September 30, 2023.
Staff Analysis:
2 This is the same number proposed by NCCWD through their preferred angled parking configuration.
The Planning Commission’s action added one on-street parking space by requiring the removal of the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard that NCCWD had proposed to remove in its preferred on-street parking configuration.
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
The condition requires Appellant to submit a request to the City Manager to relocate the TSPP space prior to the commencement of construction activities, or any site preparation work requiring access to the physical location of the TSPP space. Staff determined that construction noise, vibration, and other impacts from construction of Appellant’s project could adversely affect the occupant of the TSPP vehicle utilizing the space at the time of construction.
Additionally, Appellant indicated that pre-construction activities and utilities work may require access near to or within the TSPP space. In order to meet the findings in Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) Section 9-4.3303 for approval of use permit that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, staff determined that temporary relocation of the TSPP space prior to construction and preparation activities was warranted. Accordingly, the Planning Commission approved a condition of approval to require Appellant to obtain City approval of an alternative location for the TSPP space prior to any construction activity or pre-construction that require access to the space.
Because Appellant’s Project has a direct impact on the occupant of the Francisco Boulevard TSPP spot, and the Appellant has control over the timing of commencement of construction and preparatory activities, staff’s opinion is that it is the responsibility of the Appellant to mitigate the impact of their Project, as is the case with impacts to streets, infrastructure, or other health and safety impacts. While Appellant is correct that they do not have the power to move the space, this is not directly relevant to the terms of the condition, which requires the Appellant submit a request to the City Manager’s office to move the space and requires Appellant not to commence construction activities until an alternative space is operational.
After consideration of all the information materials included in the public hearing record, staff concludes, consistent with the Planning Commission’s findings, that Condition of Approval No. 11 is necessary to make the required findings for approval of a Use Permit. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission’s findings in this regard. For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject these grounds of appeal.
Basis 2. Condition No. 12 which eliminates angled/diagonal parking should be removed because diagonal parking is safe and consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Appellant challenges the Planning Commission’s decision to eliminate angled or diagonal parking from the Project as provided Condition of Approval No. 12. The Appellant provided four points in support of their contention that angled parking is safe and consistent with the City’s general plan. First, Appellant argues that the City’s analysis and research regarding the safety issues associated with angled parking is flawed. Second, Appellant states that the City erroneously categorized Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road. Third, Appellant contends that the City’s analysis regarding bicycle safety is without grounds because Francisco Boulevard is not a bicycle route. And Fourth, Appellant argues that angled parking is consistent with the Pacifica General Plan. These contentions are without grounds.
Staff’s assessment is that angled parking on Francisco Boulevard is unsafe. This is because head-in angled parking is associated with a higher rate of collisions, due to the blind reverse drivers must maneuver to exit the parking space, thereby presenting safety risks to vehicles and cyclists. With Francisco Boulevard’s connection to Highway 1 and the volume of traffic and speed that vehicles travel at the location, head-in angled parking is particularly hazardous. City streets with existing angled parking are more likely to be on the High Injury Network, per the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan. Staff also concludes that angled parking does not conform to the City’s General Plan policies to encourage multiple modes of travel, including because headin angled parking takes up more public right-of-way and limits the space for bike lanes. In addition, for all roadway types except Freeways and Multilane Highways, Table 5-3 of the 2040 Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
General Plan indicates that bicycles are a mode of transportation that must be accommodated on the roadway network.
a) City’s analysis and research regarding safety issues and angled parking is accurate.
First, Appellant contends that the City used irrelevant, as well as “outdated and inapplicable studies” to support the position that angled parking is not safe, referencing a 2001 Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) study that was cited in the City’s peer review traffic analysis. Second, Appellant contends that since that study was released, automobiles today have back up cameras and sensor signals, which diminishes risks of angled parking when cars back out from angled parking in current times.
Staff Analysis:
Accuracy of Research & Analysis Supporting the City’s Conclusions Regarding Angled Parking
Appellant’s contentions --that the City used outdated and inapplicable studies to reach the conclusion that Appellant’s preferred changes to the City’s right-of-way are not safe-- are without grounds. As background, Appellant proposed an angled parking configuration to provide a total of three parallel parking spaces and seven angled parking spaces, for a total of 10 parking spaces. This would result in an increase of two parking spaces over the current frontage configuration. The City’s traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers, conducted a peer review of the Appellant’s January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation prepared by Sandis for the Project. Fehr & Peers’s peer review report concluded that angled parking should not be installed along the Francisco Boulevard frontage and that the existing parallel parking configuration should be retained. Fehr & Peers’s report relied on expert knowledge and industry resources, and cites a 2001 report from ODOT, discussing a safety comparison of angled and parallel parking.
Although ODOT does not have jurisdiction in California, the 2001 report was informative, and was cited as one of several sources of information, including a detailed site-specific analysis3.
Fehr & Peers’s site-specific analysis notes that:
Concerns about conflicts between parked vehicles exiting angled parking spaces and cyclists traveling in the travel lane, due to limited visibility of the vehicle driver to the rear, have resulted in cities replacing or installing back-in angled parking spaces instead of angled parking spaces to improve visibility and increase the driver field of vision. Back-in angled parking would not be feasible at the project site given the proximity of the parking spaces to Clarendon Road.
Citations to the ODOT study and other such documents informing site-specific conditions is consistent with industry practice, and supports staff’s assessment that angled parking is not safe at the Project location. That the ODOT study describes certain drawbacks of parallel 3 Moreover, it is common for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to share information and research to help inform practices, regardless of state jurisdiction. National research informs industry standards of practice such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, and numerous Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance documents, including the On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process cited by the Appellant, which all use data and information from different states that is then synthesized into various forms of documentation that state and local agencies can use to inform local decisions.
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
parking does not lead to the Appellants preferred conclusion that angled parking is safe at the Project site.
There are several credible recent industry resources that support the conclusion that on-street parallel parking results in fewer collisions than angled on-street parking. In addition to the ODOT study, the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010)4indicates on-street angled parking increases collisions by 54% compared to on-street parallel parking in urban/suburban contexts.
The On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process (2021) cited by the Appellant also notes that converting on-street angled parking to parallel parking is a countermeasure identified by FHWA to reduce collisions. Furthermore, during the public hearing, the Appellant’s traffic engineer, Nat Levine, spoke and confirmed that there are safety concerns with angled parking.
In addition, during the Planning Commission hearing, the Appellants brought up that there are existing angled parking spaces on several City streets as support for the contention that angled parking is safe. Specifically, Appellant cites to the following streets as examples of places in the City with angled parking: (1) Palmetto Avenue, near Manor Drive; (2) Manor Drive; (3) Bill Drake Way; (4) Beach Boulevard; and (5) Clarendon Road. Manor Drive, Bill Drake Way, and Clarendon Road are east/west corridors and are shorter linear length streets. While Beach Boulevard runs north/south, it does not directly connect to State Highway 1 and is also a shorter linear length street, similar to Manor Drive, Bill Drake Way, and Clarendon Road.
The most comparable street with existing angled parking to Francisco Boulevard is Palmetto Avenue near the Manor Drive location because they are similar types of streets in terms of traffic volumes, traffic speeds, are north/south corridors, and both connect directly to State Highway 1. However, both Palmetto Avenue and Manor Drive are on the Local Roadway Safety Plan’s High Injury Network, a classification given to corridors with the highest concentrations of fatal and serious injury collisions. This is notable because Francisco Boulevard, which does not have existing angled parking, is not on the High Injury Network. Staff concludes that the presence of angled parking on Palmetto Avenue is a factor contributing to this High Injury Network designation as a higher concentration of collisions on Palmetto Avenue, near Manor Drive, has occurred as shown in Figure 1 of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, where angled parking does exist. Moreover, of all the examples brought up by the Appellant, only one has been established in the last 20 years: the angled parking on Palmetto Avenue near Manor Drive. As stated above, this area of the City’s roadway contains a high concentration of fatal and serious injury collisions.
Staff notes that the Appellant only quotes a portion of the ODOT report, and failed to include the entire sentence which reads: “The researchers concluded that while angle parking clearly has a higher crash rate and frequency it is more likely due to the increased activity of parking rather than the characteristics of either type of parking and that if ample parking supply exists, parallel parking should be used.” As the Appellant stated “there is a statistical higher incidence of crashes primarily because more vehicles use angled parking.” By the Appellant’s reasoning, the proposed angle parking, as well as the increase in the number of spaces on Francisco Boulevard the Appellant proposes, serves to increase the risk of collisions on Francisco Boulevard. Thus, in staff’s assessment, allowing angled parking would mean that the finding in PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(1)5(that the proposed project would create a hazardous vehicular traffic pattern) can be made resulting in the disapproval of the Site Development Permit for the project.
4 The City cited this source at the June 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. 5 PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(1) states That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood.
Pacifica City Council 6
August 14, 2023
Appellant provides another source of research to inform the City’s conclusions about the adverse safety outcomes resulting from angled parking: the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines for On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process. This document provides a general summary of the pros and cons for multiple parking types. The document clearly states that the main challenge with head-in angle parking is the blind reverse into traffic increasing crash risk, which is one of the primary concerns raised by City staff.
Additionally, the document states that with head-in angle parking drivers and bicyclists cannot see each other, rear loading and unloading happens in the street, and passengers are channeled toward the street.
Appellant’s Sandis Report evaluated potential installation of an all-way stop sign located on Francisco Boulevard at Brighton Road. However, the report found that an all-way stop sign does not meet any of the primary warrants as outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) set of guidelines, which is an authoritative industry standard. The Sandis Report only provides that optional Warrant C related to Line of Sight is met, but this is not sufficient to conclude that Appellant’s proposed parking configuration is safe. Moreover, in their analysis of the angled parking, Sandis determined that the design is “adequate from a circulation standpoint,” which means that a driver can physically maneuver out of the angled space without interfering with northbound traffic. But just because it is physically possible does not mean that it is safe. The report does not provide an analysis of how the all-way stop sign will improve the safety of the angled parking. The report does not provide any analysis of additional safety risks, such as traffic volumes or speeds on Francisco Boulevard, nor does it address new potential safety risks from installation of a stop sign that does not meet applicable warrants, and the conclusion that angled parking is safe from a traffic collision standpoint was not reached. As previously mentioned, during the public hearing, the Appellant’s traffic engineer, Nat Levine, spoke and confirmed that there are safety concerns with angled parking. No further analysis has been provided by Appellant.
In sum, the City’s analysis relies on industry research (including from 2010 report) and sitespecific analysis. Accordingly, Appellant’s assertion that the City relied on outdated studies is erroneous.
Appellant’s Arguments Regarding Car Safety Improvements Appellant claims that safety improvements to cars, such as sensors and backup cameras, mitigate safety risks posed by angled parking. Appellant’s argument rests on the flawed premise that most vehicles (or a sufficient number of them) traveling in Pacifica have these safety features, which are included on some newer vehicles. Appellant provides no data to support this contention. That these safety features exist, alone, does not lead to the conclusion that angled parking at this location is safe. Additionally, Staff notes that backup cameras commonly include disclaimers and warnings to drivers to not solely rely on the backup camera when determining whether it is safe to reverse. And, even if at some point a high proportion of cars traveling in Pacifica will have these safety features in the future, that is not sufficient to address staff’s concern regarding the safety of angled parking in the immediate future at this location.
b) City’s categorization of Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road.
Second, Appellant contends that the City incorrectly classified Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road. According to Appellants, the fact that Francisco Boulevard is not an arterial equates to angled parking being safe at that location.
Pacifica City Council 7
August 14, 2023
Staff Analysis:
Staff notes that the road classification of Francisco Boulevard is not relevant to staff’s conclusion that angled parking is not safe at that location6. Staff’s conclusion is supported, regardless of road classification, as head-in angled parking requires drivers to exit parking spaces without the ability to see oncoming traffic, thereby presenting a risk to motorists and cyclists.
Findings from previous studies have found that converting on-street parallel parking to angled parking consistently increases collisions across a wide range of street and land use characteristics. The estimated increase in collisions due to on-street angled parking documented in the AAHSTO Highway Safety Manual is applicable to urban/suburban streets ranging from two to five vehicle lanes with average daily trips up to 32,600 for two-lane streets and up to 66,000 for five-lane streets. It is also applicable to residential as well as commercial areas. Francisco Boulevard falls within the range of those characteristics. Accordingly, staff’s assessment regarding the safety of angled parking is supported even if Francisco Boulevard is not classified as an arterial.
c) Possible Bicycle Lanes on Francisco Boulevard
Third, the Appellant states that Francisco Boulevard is not an existing or proposed bikeway in the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and that accordingly, the City does not have proper basis to determine that angled parking is not safe for bicycles, nor can the City eliminate angled parking based on the potential future addition of bicycle lanes on Francisco Boulevard.
Staff Analysis:
Appellant’s argument is meritless. In staff’s assessment, cyclists presently utilize Francisco Boulevard7. Based on the street widths at this location, in conjunction with parallel parking, cyclists currently are able to ride safely because individuals who park in the present parallel configuration can clearly see an oncoming cyclist before traveling into the roadway. With angled parking, that visibility is diminished in a manner that presents a hazard to cyclists.
Additionally, because Appellant’s preferred angled parking configuration would take up more space in the roadway, the City would be unable to implement dedicated bike lanes at this location in the future. Keeping the parallel parking configuration allows the City to install bike lanes in the future because a dedicated bike lane could be implemented within the existing rightof-way width.
Additionally, the Project site is within the City’s Sharp Park Specific Plan and is a Priority Development Area, which increases the City’s opportunity to receive funding for multi-modal transportation projects, such as new bike lanes.
6 Staff’s conclusion that Francisco Boulevard is an arterial roadway is based on the road classification of Pavement Management Technical Assistant Program (“PTAP”) and the California Road System (“CRS”) Map, by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”). Contrary to Appellant’s statements, the classification of an arterial roadway is not only based on speeds, it is based on traffic volumes and connections to highway systems. The CRS Map indicates that Francisco Boulevard, abutting the Project site, is a Minor Arterial and they classify Minor Arterial as “provides services for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher Arterial counterparts and offer connectivity to the higher Arterial system. In an urban context, they interconnect and augment the higher Arterial system, provide intra-community continuity and may carry local bus routes.” Francisco Boulevard provides direct connection to State Highway 1, which is classified as Other Principal Arterial. 7 Data from 2021 shows that an average daily of 24 cyclists and 163 pedestrians on Francisco Boulevard.
Source: https://www.streetlightdata.com/
Pacifica City Council 8
August 14, 2023
Moreover, the accommodation of multiple modes of transportation is supported by the City’s General Plan. As analyzed in the Planning Commission staff report, in order to approve a Site Development Permit none of the findings contained in PMC Section 9-4.3504(a) can be found to exist and to approve a Use Permit the findings in PMC Section 9-4.3303 must be made. Both PMC sections contain findings regarding the Project being consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan or other applicable laws in the City. As stated in the report, the City’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan8, and as it relates to the 1980 General Plan Circulation Element, states that the City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that “safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations9.” The Project’s design of angled parking does not align with the City’s General Plan policy to provide multi-modal uses in the public right-of-way. The inclusion of angled parking at this location will increase the risk of collisions between vehicles and cyclists. It will create an unsafe environment and reduce the ability of existing and future cyclists to use this portion of the existing roadway. Thus, allowing the proposed head-in angle parking is not in compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Plan and General Plan and the findings necessary to approve the required permits cannot be made.
Additionally, the City’s 2040 General Plan contains several policies, including CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process, that require the City to look at ways that Complete Street principles can be incorporated into all projects. Part of the Complete Street principles include providing bicycle facilities (i.e. bike lanes). At the hearing, staff reiterated that the design of angled parking will not allow future bike lanes behind the angled parking due to safety risk and limited right-of-way. If the angled parking were to be implemented at this location, it could impede the City’s ability to build a robust bicycle network by leaving a gap.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines for On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection cited by the Appellant clearly state that with head-in angled parking, drivers and bicyclists cannot see each other, a concern that staff has raised repeatedly.
Thus, the Planning Commission’s findings regarding bicycle lanes and bicycle safety are supported.
d) Discussion Regarding the City’s General Plan
Fourth, Appellant contends that the Planning Commission was incorrect in their determination that angled parking was not in conformity with the City’s General Plan10 because angled parking is safe.
Staff Analysis:
8 While the City adopted the 2040 General Plan in 2022, the City has not yet adopted a certified Local Coastal Plan amendment. Thus, the 1980 Local Coastal Plan provisions remain in effect for purposes of coastal development permit and other required findings that reference the local coastal plan. 9 1980 General Plan Circulation Element Policy No. 11.
10 The project site is within the City’s coastal jurisdiction. The 2040 General Plan contains policy LU-I-3, which states that development that requires a coastal development permit shall continue to require written findings that it is consistent with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). If there is a conflict between a provision of this LCP and a provision of the General Plan, or any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for a the development to comply with both the LCP and such other plan, resolution, or ordinance, the LCP shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision. The City’s 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the California Coastal Commission and thus the project must comply with the 1980 LCP, which states that the “two plans should be treated as one.” It is staff’s opinion that the 1980 General Plan and the 2040 General Plan both support the City’s goals and policies for safe street planning and multimodal design, and that there is no conflict between their provisions in this regard.
Pacifica City Council 9
August 14, 2023
As previously noted in this report, staff’s assessment is that the angled parking configuration is not consistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element and 2040 General Plan policy CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process due to the interference with bicycle lanes and bicycle safety. Moreover, with respect to safety, the Appellant’s traffic engineer only commented on the ability of a driver to physically reverse out of the parking space within the proposed 12-foot wide travel lane without crossing into northbound traffic and did not determine angled parking was safe from a traffic collision standpoint. The Appellant has provided no further safety analysis. In fact, the Appellant has confirmed that increasing the number of on-street parking spaces proposed to be added to Francisco Boulevard in the headin angle parking configuration creates statistical higher incidences of crashes resulting in a traffic hazard. Thus, the Project is not in compliance with the City’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element Policy No. 11.
Additionally, the City’s 2040 General Plan encourages multi-modal uses in the public right-ofway. The Appellant has not demonstrated how the angled parking is safe with existing and future users of Francisco Boulevard.
Moreover, the Appellant claims that the Sandis report demonstrates that narrow travel lanes due to angled parking and installation of center lane stripe will promote traffic calming and encourage slower rates of speed. However, the report does not provide analysis of how narrow travel lanes and installation of center lane stripe will result in traffic calming or encourage slower rates at this particular location. Staff notes that while angled parking had previously been considered a traffic calming measure, this notion is outdated. Recent studies show that there is no difference in travel speeds when compared to parallel parking in the City of San Francisco11.
Furthermore, other studies on the subject rely on back-in angled parking, which is not the configuration Appellant proposed and is therefore not applicable, and/or protected bike lanes to make the claim, and this circumstance is also not present here1213.
Staff notes that well-settled law provides that the City has deference in determining whether a project is consistent with its General Plan. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 816 [“the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity” (internal citations omitted).]) After consideration of all the information materials included in the public hearing record, the Planning Commission adopted staff’s recommendation to impose Condition No. 12 to ensure that Project is in compliance with Pacifica Municipal Code, Local Coastal Plan, and the General Plan. For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.
Basis 3. Condition No. 21 should be revised to require patch paving and repairs.
The Appellant has provided no additional information other than stating that Condition of Approval No. 21 should be revised to require patch paving and repairs. 11 Moran, M. E. (2021). What’s your angle? Analyzing angled parking via satellite imagery to aid bikenetwork planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(7), 1912–1925. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320954205
12 Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates (2005) Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking. http://pcpb.net/traffic/1902ReverseDiagonalParking.pdf. Assessed on August 8, 2023 13 On-street Parking Design. https://www.vta.org/cdt/parking-design-home-page/street-parking-design.
Accessed on August 8, 2023.
Pacifica City Council 10 August 14, 2023
Staff Analysis:
As background, Condition of Approval No. 21 requires the Appellant to conduct repairs on the roadway based on impacts from the construction of the Project. This is a standard condition that the City imposes on all private development projects, including on City projects such as the Civic Center Campus Facilities Project, along Francisco Boulevard. The requirements imposed for repaving are based on road conditions. The current Pavement Conditions Index (“PCI”) of Francisco Boulevard is 52 in the City’s pavement management system software, StreetSaver.
The utility cuts being proposed with the project will drop the PCI from a “good” rating to a “poor” rating. The PTAP report requires a mill and thick overlay for a pavement in a poor PCI rating.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.
Basis 4. Condition No. 24 regarding the elimination of a third driveway should be removed to allow a dedicated driveway for the proposed recycled water drive-thru.
The Appellant contends that Condition No. 24 should be removed so that Appellant may add a third driveway for the proposed recycled water drive-thru.
Staff Analysis:
Staff agrees that the proposed recycled water service is a benefit to the community. Staff’s concern with the proposed design of the drive-thru recycled water station is the number of driveways and their proximity to the existing Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection. As proposed, the Project would create a sight distance hazard when a bus is stopped at the existing bus stop. A secondary concern was the removal of on-street parking opportunities. On June 12, 2023, staff met with SamTrans staff and the Appellant on-site.
During that meeting, the permanent relocation of the bus stop was discussed and possible relocation was identified. However, staff did not have all the facts needed to make a determination on whether the chosen relocation space met all the needed criteria. It was also determined that the right-of-way was most likely under the authority of Caltrans. As such, staff recommended and the Planning Commission agreed that a new condition of approval be placed on the Project regarding the possible permanent relocation of the bus stop. Condition No. 51 states that the Appellant shall coordinate with SamTrans to temporarily relocate the Clarendon Road bus stop prior to commencement of construction and permanent relocation of the bus stop after completion of the Project shall be subject to City approval, as well as other necessary agencies such as Caltrans. To date, staff has not received any additional information regarding the permanent relocation of the bus stop from the Appellant, SamTrans or Caltrans.
Basis 5. Condition No. 32 should be removed because it is outside of the Project scope.
Appellant contends that Condition of Approval No. 32 to require the installation of a fuel cover should be removed because it is not within the scope of the proposed project.
Staff Analysis:
This contention is without grounds. Municipal Regional Permit (“MRP”) Section C.3.b.ii.3.a. requires projects that alter 50 percent or more of the impervious surface of a previously existing development that was not subject to Provision C.3, as is the case with this project site, consisting of all existing, new, and/or replaced impervious surfaces, must be included in the treatment system design. Over 50% of the site is being disturbed and resurfaced which triggers the need for a cover over the existing fueling station as required by Section C.3.c.i.1.b of the MRP.
Pacifica City Council 11 August 14, 2023
For the reason provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.
CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Development Permits, 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 Development Permits, the Council should deny the appeal by adopting the attached Resolution.
In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal and modify and/or remove conditions of approval, 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.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis of the Project supports the City Council finding that the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(a) provides criteria for identifying the Lead Agency when more than one public agency is involved with a Project. Appellant will carry out the project, and therefore Appellant appropriately identified themselves as the Lead Agency. The City of Pacifica, due to its role in considering a discretionary permit is acting as a Responsible Agency pursuant to Section 15050(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Appellant, acting as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption and filed a Notice of Exemption with the County of San Mateo on April 28, 2022. The Project qualifies as a Class 1 and Class 2 exemptions provided in Section 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 states in part:
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 use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. 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 an existing use. Examples include but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as an earthquake, landslide, or flood.
The proposed project would enhance the existing Appellant’s headquarters site which does not meet current federal laws and has access issues. The buildings would be upgraded to meet current structural codes and would meet safety standards, including for a seismic event. The upgrades would help the site achieve current public health and safety regulations and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 1 exemption.
Section 15302 states in part:
Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structures replaced, including but not limited to:
Pacifica City Council 12 August 14, 2023
(b) Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity.
The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing administrative building and a maintenance building and construction of a new two-story office building in the same location.
Appellant states that although the administrative building will be expanded by square footage, the overall capacity and purpose will not change and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 2 exemption.
* * * * *
Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply:
• Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception is not applicable to a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption. • 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.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption and none of the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 apply; there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
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 a Class 1 and Class 2 categorical exemptions from CEQA to the Project. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission approval of the Development Permits. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The Project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct impact since all costs would be borne by the Appellant.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
Pacifica City Council 13 August 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (DOC) Attachment E - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (PDF)
Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (PDF)
Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers Report Attached (PDF)
Attachment I - Public Comments (PDF)