RECEIVED
City of Pacifica JUN 2 2 2023
APPEAL FORM In persun
CITY CLERK
INSTRUCTIONS: TO FILE AN APPEAL, COMPLETE THIS FORM AND FILE IT WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, CITY HALL, 540 CRESPI DRIVE, PACIFICA, CA 94044, NO LATER THAN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION (POSTMARK DATE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED), TOGETHER WITH ANY REQUIRED APPEAL FEE. (ONLINE PAYMENTS INCUR A $3.00 ADD'L CONVENIENCE FEE.) YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE HEARING DATE FOR YOUR APPEAL.
APPELLANT: FILL IN BLANKS AND CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES BELOW. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. ($550.00 FEE IS REQUIRED PER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION(S), IF FILED BY NON-APPLICANT) ($426.00 FEE IS REQUIRED PER APPEAL OF TREE PERMIT)
PROPOSED PROJECT: APPELLANT:
Title/Name: North Coast County Water District Headquarters Upgrade Project Name: North Coast County Water District Address: 2400 Francisco Boulevard Address: 2400 Francisco Boulevard Applicant/Developer: North Coast County Water District Phone (Day): (650) 355-3462 DECISION OF (check one): DECISION DATE: 6/13/23 Email Address: :[email protected] E Planning Commission • Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division • City Staff (Title):
DECISION AT ISSUE: • APPROVAL or • DENIAL of:
= Use Permit - Site Development Permit • Tentative Subdivision Map • Animal Permit EIR or Negative Declaration Coastal Development Permit Administrative Decision Variance Parking Exception Home Occupation Permit Tree Permit • Other i DESCRIBE DECISION BEING APPEALED:
Planning Commission's imposition of Conditions 11, 12, 21, 24, and 32 on its approval of Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Use Permit UP-130-22, and Parking Exception PE-194-22 (For more detail, see Attachment A.) DESCRIBE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
The Conditions imposed are onerous, unreasonable, and unnecessary. Condition 12 is unnecessary because diagonal parking is safe and complies with the City General Plan. Condition 24 defeats one of the Project's key elements, a drive-through recycled water filling station for public use.
Condition 11 requires the District to relocate the Temporary Safe Parking Program spot, when only the City has power to do so. Condition 21 requires unnecessary and expensive repaving that is not imposed on other public agency projects. Condition 32 is outside of the scope of the Project. (For more detail, see Attachment A.) APPELLANT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ITEM BEING APPEALED? (check one):
. E Project Applicant L Neighbor • Concerned Citizen Other_ APPELANTS SIGNATURE: * Adamen 6/22/23
_DATE:
Received By: Lah Off Fee Paid: • Cash X Check • Online
Receipt Date: 6e/22/2023 Receipt #_42603
Chok E38652 Ant $550.00
City Clerk's Office Use Only Rev. 07/01/2022
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY HALL
170 SANTA MARIA AVENUE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
650-738-7300
Receipt: 42603
Operator: TPeyton-Rehn
6/22/2023 3:02:58 PM
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME $550.00
SubTotal $550.00
lax $0.00
Total Due $550.00
Check $550.00
Change Due $0.00
HAVE A NICE DAY!
Attachment to North Coast County Water District Appeal of Conditions Imposed on North Coast County Water District Headquarters Project
The District appeals Conditions 11, 12, 21, 24, and 32 that the Planning Commission has imposed on Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Use Permit UP-130-22, and Parking Exception PE-194-22 for the District's Headquarters Project ("Project"). The Project involves demolition and replacement of portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site, and construction of a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements on an approximately 0.8-acre site located at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230). The Planning Commission adopted these conditions via Resolution No. 2023-009 on June 13, 2023. These five conditions are onerous, unreasonable, and unnecessary, and the District appeals the specified conditions for the reasons discussed below.
The City Manager informed the District that the hearing for this appeal will be held on August 14, 2023. The District requests that the City expedite this hearing and hold it on an earlier date because delays in beginning the construction of the Project continue to add to the costs of the Project.
I. BACKGROUND
It is the mission of the North Coast County Water District ("District") to serve its customers by delivering a sufficient quantity of high quality water in the most cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally sensitive manner. The North Coast County Water District Headquarters facility on Francisco Boulevard has served the community of Pacifica since the early 1960's, but with the passing of time, it is aging, undersized, inefficient, and seismically vulnerable. Given that the administration and maintenance buildings are over 60 years old and have not undergone any major renovations since they were originally constructed, these buildings are outdated in many ways and need significant accessibility, structural, and safety improvements.
The District Headquarters facility is the sole hub for the operation of the water system in the City of Pacifica and provides key civic services to all of the residents of the City. The administration building houses the customer service and field operations departments, as well as the District's water quality laboratory, public meeting room, and emergency operations center. The maintenance building and corporation yard include equipment, supplies, and materials that enable the District to maintain and repair the District's water system, both for planned system maintenance and unexpected emergency repairs, such as water main breaks.
The District's goals for the Project are to improve the safety of its employees and customers, to provide a modern up-to-date work environment and expanded public meeting space, to improve the efficiency and functionality of all aspects of the District operations, and to enhance the ability of the District staff to interact with its customers in a safe and welcoming manner.
The District's Headquarters facility is located at the gateway to the Sharp Park area and civic center area of Pacifica with the new City Hall just blocks away on Francisco Boulevard. As such, the external components of the Headquarters facility upgrade project are just as important as the internal elements of the buildings and corporation yard. A key element of the external improvements is the inclusion of diagonal parking in the design. Diagonal parking will provide more parking for the public on Francisco Boulevard and make it easier and more convenient for customers to conduct business and attend public meetings, as well as visit the surrounding local businesses. The new Headquarters facility will be safe, energy-efficient, versatile, and customer friendly and will enable the District to continue to provide around-the-clock water service to all of Pacifica for generations to come.
In designing this Project, the District has been extremely respectful to the surrounding neighborhood, including by moving the entrance of the Headquarters from residential Brighton Road to the more commercial Francisco Boulevard frontage. The design also removes a driveway/yard entrance from Francisco Boulevard, to increase parking along the Francisco Boulevard frontage and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. It includes adding a driveway on Clarendon Road to provide a public drive-through recycled water filling station. This will improve the safety and security of District facilities and staff, and provide increased public access to the District's recycled water fill station, which will expand the use of recycled water thereby preserving precious potable water for domestic use. The design also strives to match the scale and character of the street and neighborhood, including beautifying the neighborhood with attractive plantings and diagonal parking to invoke a "downtown" feel. Exterior renderings of this Project are provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
A. S Planning Application Process
Prior to submitting the Planning Application, District staff and consultants met with multiple City departments to understand what requirements the City would impose. The District proactively discussed the Project's goals and scope with the City early on and endeavored to address any issues. Throughout multiple rounds of City review, District staff provided detailed responses and made themselves available to answer questions at any time. However, Planning Department staffing shortages and changes in City staff and leadership caused Project delays and complications. In fact, the District never received any feedback on the final (September 2022) Planning Application submission and Planning Department staff did not respond to any emails for an entire month after the response to the District's application was due.
The Planning Commission scheduled a hearing on the Project for May 15, 2023. The conditions imposed on the District suggest that the City did not review materials that the District submitted in September 2022 (third submittal of District's Planning Application). Additionally, the agenda packet for this hearing contained outdated and incorrect drawings.
At the May 15 hearing, City staff informed the District that the Planning Commission could not hold the hearing because, due to conflicts of interest, it did not have a quorum. The City then rescheduled the hearing for June 13, 2023, informing the District that one of the conflicted Commissioners would be randomly selected to participate in the vote in accordance with the Political Reform Act. At the June 13 hearing, the Commission voted to approve the Project, as conditioned, and made three modifications to staff's proposal, modifying Condition 21, removing Condition 22, and adding Condition 51.
2 The District files this appeal pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code sections 9-4.3208, 9-
4.3304, and 9-4.3602, which allow the City Council to modify a site development permit, use permit, and coastal development permit upon considering an appeal.
II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
1. The District's Appeal Is Limited to Conditions 11, 12, 21, 24, and 32.
The District asks that the City Council grant this appeal and, in doing so, approve the District's Site Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, and Parking Exception, but remove Conditions 12, 24, and 32, and revise Conditions 11 and 21, as described as follows:
A. Condition 12 Should be Removed Because Diagonal Parking Is Safe and Consistent with the City's General Plan.
Condition 12 eliminates diagonal parking from the plan set and prohibits it along any Project frontage unless approved in writing by the City Engineer. For the reasons discussed in greater detail below, the District opposes this condition in full and asks that it be removed.
Condition 24 Should be Removed Because Recycled Water Delivery is a Key Component of the Project.
Condition 24 reduces the number of driveways from three (3) to two (2) along Clarendon Road.
For the reasons discussed in greater detail below, the District opposes this condition in full and asks that it be removed.
C. Condition 32 Should be Removed Because It Is Outside the Scope of the Project.
Condition 32 requires that the District install a cover for the fuel area. The District has repeatedly told the City that this fuel station is an existing facility and is specifically excluded from the Project. No changes are being made to the fuel station, and this requirement for covering the fuel station is outside of the District's Project, so the District opposes this condition in full and asks that it be removed.
D. Condition 11 Should be Revised to Require the City to Relocate the TSPP Spot, Rather than the District.
Condition 11, for the reasons discussed below, should be revised to require that the City, rather than the District, relocate the TSPP spot prior to commencement of any construction activity on the Project site or commencement of any preparatory work prior to construction activity that requires access to the physical location of the TSPP space located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site.
E. Condition 21 Should be Revised to Require Patch Paving and Repairs.
Condition 21 should be revised to require that the District patch pave and make repairs to the streets, sidewalks, and curbs that are impacted by the Project, instead of replacing all asphalt to 3 the centerline of the streets. The District should have the same, not more onerous and expensive, repaving obligations that the City imposes on other public agencies, such as the Pacifica School District, when undertaking projects that impact the streets, sidewalks, and curbs.
2. Condition 12 Should be Removed Because Diagonal Parking Is Safe and Consistent with the City's General Plan
The City has imposed Condition 12 prohibiting diagonal parking on the faulty basis that it would cause traffic safety issues and conflict with the City's General Plan. The District retained a traffic expert to prepare a traffic safety study which found that diagonal parking does not create a satety concern. (See Exhibit B.) The City's traffic consultant, which did not conduct its own study but peer reviewed the District's expert traffic safety study, disagreed with this conclusion. However, the peer review was based on outdated and inapplicable studies and false categorizations.
Ultimately, the City takes an overly restrictive interpretation of the General Plan when it concludes that the Project does not comply. Not only does the diagonal parking comply with the General Plan, but the evidence also shows that it is safe.
A. l The City's Conclusion that Diagonal Parking is Unsafe Relies on Outdated and Inapplicable Studies
To support its conclusion that diagonal parking is unsafe, the City's traffic consultant relies on a 2001 report from the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT"). ODOT findings have no jurisdiction on transportation planning in California. Moreover, the ODOT report clearly noted that angled parking had a higher incidence of crashes over parallel parking primarily "due to the increased activity of parking rather than the characteristics of either type of parking." In other words, there is a statistical higher incidence of crashes primarily because more vehicles use angled parking. In addition, these old studies do not contemplate that many automobiles today have back up cameras and sensor signals to minimize some of the potential risks when cars are reversing.
The U.S. Department of Transportation provides a more balanced overview of angled parking in its guidelines for On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process. As noted therein, there are pros and cons for each modality: reverse angle-in, parallel, and head-in angled parking. (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process (Feb. 2021), pp. 3-4.) Overall, accident rates in connection with parking are based on several factors, including speed, traffic frequency, road width, and land use type. Even the ODOT report noted this and described several drawbacks of parallel parking, including:
1. driver and passengers may have to exit vehicle into the traveled way;
2. the parking maneuver takes more time than angle;
3. some drivers must execute maneuver multiple times;
4. interruption of through movement depending upon width of cross section.
As a result, it is not legally defensible to impose conditions precluding diagonal parking based on the findings in the ODOT report.
4 B. The City Relied on an Inaccurate Classification of Francisco Blvd as an Arterial Road in Concluding that Diagonal Parking is Unsafe City staff incorrectly asserted at the Planning Commission hearing that Francisco Boulevard is an arterial road. At the hearing, the City Engineer asserted that diagonal parking was a safety concern based on increases in collisions on arterial roads. However, the City's General Plan identifies Francisco Boulevard as a collector road and the Sharp Park specific plan inconsistently identifies it as a collector road in the text and a local road in a figure. The crash data for arterial roads therefore cannot serve as a legal finding to support the imposition of Condition 12.
The City's representatives at the June 13 public hearing emphasized that arterial roads have higher traffic speeds and volume. In comparison, collector roads like Francisco "provide less mobility than arterials at lowers speeds and for shorter distances" and "balance mobility with land access." (See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Road Function Classifications (Nov. 2000), p. 1.) Local roads are characterized by "limited mobility and are the primary access to residential areas, businesses, farms, and other local areas." (Id. at p.
2.) They have "speed limits usually between 20 and 45 mi/h." Francisco Boulevard has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, and therefore it would be correct to classify it as a local road. (Id.) Francisco does not meet the criteria for an arterial road, which "typically have higher posted speed limits as vehicles encounter few or no at-grade intersections." (Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Functional Classification: Concepts Criteria and Procedures (2013), p. 8.) For arterial roads, "[t]he absence of cross-traffic and driveways allows for higher rates of speed, which provides mobility, especially for long-distance travel." (Id.) However, in the immediate area surrounding the District — the blocks between Clarendon and Montecito Avenue - there are five residential driveways/garages that enter and exit onto Francisco Boulevard and four residential roadways that intersect at Francisco Boulevard
The accident risk for collector and local roads, like Francisco Boulevard, is not as high as arterial roads, and cannot support a finding that diagonal parking is unsafe.
C. The City's Conclusion that Diagonal Parking is Unsafe Relies on Improper Classification of Francisco as a Bicycle Route
In prohibiting diagonal parking, the City claims that diagonal parking poses safety hazards to bicycles. However, Francisco is not identified as a bike route in the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, it is not included in the "Recommended Bicycle Facilities" for the Sharp Park neighborhood, and it is not included as an "existing" or "proposed" bikeway in this plan. Instead, Oceana, parallel to Francisco on the east side of Highway 1 is appropriately proposed as a Class Il bicycle lane. As a result, bicycle traffic on the portion of Francisco Boulevard proposed for diagonal parking is expected to be very low.
At the Planning Commission meeting, City staff opined that diagonal parking could interfere with future decisions to locate bicycle facilities on Francisco Boulevard. This assertion does not provide a legal basis for the City to impose Condition 12. The City has a legal obligation to make findings based on the actual contents of the General Plan and related planning documents, not on hypothetical plan amendments that may or may not occur in the future.
The City has told the District that it might apply for grant funding for bicycle routes in Sharp Park, as there is funding available for such projects. Grant funding would not apply to Francisco Boulevard because it is not identified as a bicycle route in planning documents, and therefore the City's claim that it would lose out on grant funding if there was diagonal parking in front of the District Headquarters is baseless.
D. Diagonal Parking Complies with the General Plan
Not only is diagonal parking safe, but it also complies with the General Plan. A finding that a particular project is consistent with the General Plan requires only that the project be "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in" the plan. (Gov. Code §66473.5.) This requires a project to be "in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with every detail" of it. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678 [emphasis added]; Old E. Davis Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Davis (2022) 73 Cal.App.Sth 895, The Project is in harmony with the General Plan Circulation Element policy that sets safety as a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulation. As the Planning Commission staff report identified, removing the driveway from Francisco Boulevard provides safety benefits. And diagonal parking reduces hazards associated with parallel parking by eliminating the possibility of "dooring" and reducing time spent parking, and thereby driver interference.
Additionally, the Project supports multi-modal use of the public right-of-way. The General Plan Circulation Element encourages "alternatives to motor vehicle transportation." And the City has interpreted this to prohibit diagonal parking on a road without an existing bicycle lane. Yet no existing or proposed City plan that is publicly available identifies this portion of Francisco Boulevard as a bicycle route. A design plan for today should not be modified to preserve a potential future bicycle lane, something that could happen decades from now, if at all.
Particularly when there are parallel roads with bicycle lanes. The City can find that the Project is in harmony with this policy because the District has demonstrated that diagonal parking can co- exist safely with bicycle traffic, particularly on collector and local roads. Specifically, the District's traffic expert found that maintenance of 12 foot wide travel lanes and installation of a center lane strip would promote traffic calming and encourage slower speeds. (Exhibit B.) Accordingly, there is no support for the City's conclusion that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and Condition 12 should be removed.
3. Condition 24 Should be Removed Because The Third Driveway is Necessary for the Drive-Through Recycled Water Fill Station Which Is An Essential Element of the Project
A key feature of the Project is a new drive-through recycled water fill station, which would increase public access to this unique water supply that is offered to Pacifica residents trained and certified to use this recycled water. Several members of the public spoke at the June 13 hearing 6 about the significant community benefit that the recycled water drive-through station would provide. Moreover, California law encourages the use of recycled water in order to preserve potable water for its highest and best use — health, safety, and sanitation. The City should not impose any conditions that would restrict the expansion of the use of recycled water.
The District has operated a recycled water fill station at its Headquarters since 2015. Currently, during the dry season, the District operates the fill station several days per week for a limited time window. To provide the recycled water, the District must open the gate to its corporation yard and provide a staff member to serve the recycled water to customers. This creates a burden on the District by taking away a staff member from other critical water operations tasks. There is also a security risk to District property by opening its gates for several hours per week and allowing access to the District corporation yard. The new drive-through fill station would provide customers access to recycled water at any time during normal business hours, when the gates to this drive-through fill station are unlocked.
By creating a one-way drive aisle to serve the public, the corporation yard can remain secure and the public kept outside of maintenance operations. Not only would this increase the public's access to this water supply, it would also free up District staff for other critical tasks.
Condition 24 would eliminate the District's ability to provide this recycled water drive-through.
The City proposes removing the third driveway, a necessary element of the Project, in order to avoid sight line impacts due to the bus stop. On June 13, 2023, the Planning Commission added a new condition of approval to work to relocate the bus stop from this location. Moreover, as discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, the direction of the drive-through recycled water fill station could be reversed to avoid the potential sight line issues even if the bus stop is not moved.
The City did not inform the District about the elimination of this key project feature until February 22, 2023, although the District and the City met on several occasions following the District's March 2022 plan submittal. The April 20, 2022 and July 15, 2022 Incompleteness Determination letters did not mention the elimination of this third driveway. On May 5, 2022, District staff met with City Engineering Staff to discuss the project, and there was no mention of removal of this driveway during this call. On March 1, March 2, and March 14, 2023, the District requested the Engineering Department explain each of the conditions that were listed in the February 21 communication. The District also requested information about the specific City policies and/or design standards that led to these conditions being imposed by the City. The District never received a response from Planning or Engineering responding to these requests.
The District provided several timeframes in which it was available to meet, but again, it received no response.
Instead, at the June 13 hearing, City staff presented an alternative site layout, which the District had not been provided in advance of the hearing, and which District staff noted would immediately cause issues. There, the City proposed that the District use its westernmost driveway as the entrance to the fill station, with the exit out of the easternmost existing driveway.
However, the District explained that it uses the westernmost driveway as its sole entrance and exit for its emergency operations vehicles. It is critical that this driveway remain clear for 7 District operations and that secure access to the District's corporation yard is maintained at this gate/driveway. In addition, larger trucks, such as fuel tankers and garbage trucks need to have access to this driveway. The City staff responded that the District could move the secure gate back. However this solution would take valuable space in the corporation yard for access to the trash enclosure and parking spaces, as well as restrict the efficiency and speed that District operations vehicles can exit the corporation yard in an emergency when time is critical.
Ultimately, the City has not provided any reasonable basis for eliminating the third driveway from the project. The District therefore requests that the City Council delete Condition 24.
4. Condition 11 Should be Revised to Require the City to Relocate the TSPP Spot, Rather than the District
The City found that the Project would result in a health and safety risk for any individual residing at the physical location of the Temporary Safe Parking Program Space ("TSPP") located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site. As a result, the City imposed Condition 11 which requires the District to submit a request to the City Manager's Office to relocate the TSPP space to another location deemed suitable in the City Manager's sole discretion. The District agrees that the TSPP spot needs to be relocated. However, because the District does not have the power to move the space, this condition should be revised to require that the City relocate the TSPP spot prior to commencement of any construction activity on the Project site or commencement of any preparatory work prior to construction activity that requires access to the physical location of the TSPP space located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site.
Ideally, this revised condition would require the City to relocate this TSPP spot by September 30,2023.
5. Staff Delays Have Improperly Resulted in Imposition of Errant Conditions and Belated Proposed Redesigns
The Planning Department's delays and inattention to this Project have resulted in belated imposition of conditions and attempts to redesign the Project at the eleventh hour. At the hearing, the Planning Department presented a diagram of a redesign to the District for the first time. Now is not the time to redesign the Project, and City staff missed that opportunity when it failed to meet deadlines under the Permit Streamlining Act in determining whether the District's application was complete.
In fact the City missed plenty of opportunities to inform the District of its concerns, after the District's first submission of its Planning Application in March 2022. The District initially submitted its Planning Application on March 21, 2022 and resubmitted its application two additional times on June 16" and September 14"h in response to Determinations of Incompleteness letters. District staff met with City staff after each Determination of Incompleteness to ask questions and make sure that the District had all the correct information before resubmitting its application.
The District only received Engineering Department comments included in Incompleteness Determination letters dated April 20, 2022 and July 15, 2022. The Planning Department did not include detailed comments from the Engineering Services Department in its Incompleteness Determination letters. The District never received a response back from the Planning Department 8 after its third Planning Application submitted September 14, 2022. The District outlined the issues with this inadequate process in an October 27, 2022 letter to the City, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
In response, on November 15, 2022 the Planning Director notified the District that its application was deemed complete due to the failure of the Planning Department to respond within the required 30-day timeframe by the Permit Streamlining Act. The comments that formed the basis for many of the conditions that the District opposes were not provided until February 22, 2023.
Some of these issues had never been communicated to the District about the Project. As a result of the City's inadequate process, the District's objections to the improper conditions were not resolved at the planning level, and now must be addressed on appeal before the City Council.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The District asks that the City Council grant this appeal and, in doing so, approve the District's Site Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, and Parking Exception, revise Condition 11 to require that the City, rather than the District move the TSPP spot, revise Condition 21 to require repairing the streets, sidewalks, and curbs that are impacted by the Project, and remove Conditions 12, 24, and 32. The District's proposed conditions are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
9 EXHIBIT A
Looking North Along Francisco Boulevard North Coast County Water District NOLL& TAM 05/03/2023 ARCHITECTS
NORTH COAST COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
EXHIBIT A
Looking West from Francisco Boulevard North Coast County Water District NOLL TAM 05/03/2023 ARCHITECTS
EXHIBIT A
Corner of Brighton Rd and Francisco Blvd from Highway 1 North Coast County Water District NOLL TAM 05/03/2023 ARCHITECTS
NORTH COAST COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
EXHIBIT A
Corner of Brighton Rd and Francisco Blvd from Street Level North Coast County Water District NOLL TAM 05/03/2023 ARCHITECTS
EXHIBIT B
SANDIS
January 10, 2023
Project No. 622114
Adrianne Carr, Ph.D.
General Manager
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
T: 650-3553462
E: [email protected]
RE: NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS
PROJECT TRAFFIC EVALUATION
PACIFICA, CA
Dear Adrianne,
At the request of the North Coast County Water District (District), we have performed a traffic evaluation for the new District Headquarters. This evaluation focuses on the following specific elements:
• Evaluation of Francisco Blvd / Brighton Rd including an All-way Stop Control Warrant • Roadway / Parking Layout of Francisco Blvd along Headquarters frontage The following report presents the evaluation and resulting findings / recommendations for each of the two elements.
All Way Stop Warrant
Primary Warrants
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) Section 2B.07 provides a set of guidelines that can be used to determine the appropriateness of installing an all-way stop condition at an intersection. The primary warrants listed for installing all-way stop control include:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day;
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but
BUILD ON. I1
@ SANDIS
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Primary Warrant A (Interim Condition)
Primary Warrant A is specifically targeted toward intersections where signalization is either under consideration or is already planned for future installation. Signalization has not been planned or considered at the project intersection meaning Primary Warrant A is not applicable.
Primary Warrant B (Crash History)
The crash history warrant is aimed at reducing the frequency of crashes at an intersection via the installation of all-way stop control. To analyze this warrant, collision records for a five-year period (01/01/2018- 01/01/2023) were collected from the California Highway Patrol's (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Between 2018 and 2023 there were three collisions recorded at the intersection including two sideswipes with a parked vehicle and one collision with a fixed object. None of these collision types are considered to be susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. The frequency of crashes is also far below the five crashes within a 12-month period threshold specified in the warrant. For this reason, Primary Warrant B was not satisfied.
Primary Warrant C (Minimum Volumes)
Primary Warrant C analyzes whether traffic volumes and/or vehicle delay warrant the installation of all-way stop control.
Traffic counts were collected on 08/03/22 (Wednesday) from 7:00AM-9:00AM and 4:00PM-6:00PM. This was assumed to capture the peak AM and PM traffic volume periods respectively at the intersection. These counts were utilized to analyze minimum traffic volumes. The full traffic count data can be found in the appendix of this report.
From the combined 4 hours of AM and PM peak period data, the average hourly traffic along Francisco Blvd (both directions) was found to be 194 veh/hr. This is below the required 300 veh/hr threshold. Additionally, because the collected data represents the peak period traffic conditions, it was assumed that traffic volumes outside of this range are also at or below 194 veh/hr. As a result, Primary warrant C.1 was not satisfied.
Primary Warrant C.1 and C.2 must both be met to be satisfied. Because Primary Warrant C.1 was not satisfied, Primary Warrant C.2 was not analyzed.
The 85 percentile speed along Francisco Blvd was determined to be 32 mph. Primary Warrant C.3 was found not applicable because the 85" percent speed is below the 40 MPH threshold of Warrant C.3.
Primary Warrant D (Combined Criteria)
Primary Warrant D pertains to Primary Warrant B and C being satisfied in combination while only requiring each to meet 80% of their stated values.
For Primary Warrant B, the 80% value equates to 4 crashes within a 12-month period. For the highest frequency 12-month period only 2 crashes were reported at the intersection, both of which are not considered to be susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. As a result, Primary Warrant D was deemed to be not applicable, and it was not necessary to reanalyze Primary Warrant C to 80% values.
BUILD ON. I2
O SANDIS
Optional Warrants
Section 2B.07 of the CAMUTCD also lists several optional considerations including:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.
Optional Warrant A (Left-Turn Conflicts)
All-way stop control may be warranted at an intersection if there are significant left-turn conflicts. SWITRS crash history for the five-year period was consulted to determine if there appears to be any left turn conflict present at the intersection. Over the five-year period, none of the reported crashes involved a left turn movement. For this reason, Optional Warrant A was not deemed to be satisfied.
Optional Warrant B (Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts)
Optional Warrant B examines whether there are significant pedestrian conflicts across the uncontrolled approaches of the intersection. There are no crosswalks across Francisco Blvd and no pedestrian destinations on the east side of Francisco Blvd to generate any crossing pedestrian traffic. Optional Warrant B was deemed not satisfied because there does not appear to be a significant pedestrian conflict for the currently uncontrolled Francisco Blvd approaches.
Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight)
Optional Warrant C examines whether line-of-sight limitations restrict a driver's ability to navigate the intersection and avoid conflicting vehicle traffic safely. Because the Francisco Blvd approaches are uncontrolled, and the Brighton Rd approach is stop controlled the only condition analyzed was drivers entering the intersection from the Brighton Rd approach.
The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM) section 405.1 provides guidance regarding intersection Corner sight distance.
The 85'h percentile speed (32 MPH) was used as the design speed and the design vehicle was assumed to be a passenger vehicle.
The HDM methodology resulted in the required sight distance to be 305' for vehicles approaching from the left on SB Francisco Blvd and 355' for vehicles approaching from the right on NB Francisco Blvd. However, the all- way stop-controlled intersection of Clarendon Rd and Francisco Blvd is only 240' from the decision point at the project intersection. Because all vehicles come to a complete stop at the Clarendon Rd and Francisco Blvd intersection, it was assumed that the line of sight only needs to extend to the edge of this intersection (240).
Exhibit 1 shows the resulting line of sight with the proposed site development shown for reference. For vehicles to safely enter uncontrolled Francisco Blvd, 215' of clear space is required along the curb line to the north of the intersection and 100' of clear space is required along the curb line to the south of the intersection.
This would result in the removal of approximately six existing parallel parking spaces to the north of the BUILD ON. |3
© SANDIS
intersection and approximately three proposed parallel parking stalls to the south of the intersection.
Removing this parking would require public outreach and is assumed to receive community pushback. The line of sight is not sufficient without the removal of parking and would require additional analysis and outreach. Optional warrant C is considered to be satisfied due to the line-of-sight limitations as this project does not propose to remove or limit existing roadway parking.
Optional Warrant D (Intersection of Two Collectors)
Optional Warrant D examines locations where two similar Residential collector roadways intersect. According to the City of Pacifica General plan dated May 2022, Francisco Blvd is classified as a collector, and Brighton Rd is classified as a local street. Because Brighton Rd is not a collector or through street, Optional Warrant D is not satisfied.
Summary and Recommendations
Table 1 summarizes the results of each All-Way Stop Control warrant that was examined. Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight) was found to be satisfied due to line-of-sight limitations. Given our understanding of parking demand near the Project extents, review of the surrounding roadway / traffic environment and Optional Warrant C being satisfied, we recommend all-way stop control be implemented at the Francisco Blvd and Brighton Rd intersection.
Table 1: All-Way Stop Warrant Results
Primary Warrants
Letter Criteria Satisfied
A Interim Condition (Before Signalization) Not Applicable B Crash History No
C.1 Major Street Volumes No
C.2 Minor Street Volumes No
C.3 Reduced Thresholds for Roadways Exceeding 40 MPH Travel Not Applicable Speeds
Combined 80% Criteria for B, C.1 & C.2 together (C.3 not No D
applicable)
Optional Warrants
Letter Criteria Satisfied
A Left-Turn Conflicts No
Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts No
Line of Sight Yes
D Intersection of two Residential Collectors (through) Streets Not Applicable BUILD ON. I4
SANDIS
Francisco Boulevard Parking / Lane Configuration
Overview
The proposed District Headquarters project intends to improve the project frontages along Francisco Blvd, Clarendon Rd and Brighton Rd. As part of these improvements, new sidewalk/landscaping will be constructed along with parking facilities adjacent to the roadway. The project is currently proposing parallel parking along the Clarendon and Brighton Rd frontages and a combination of parallel and diagonal parking along the Francisco Blvd frontage.
As part of this study, Sandis evaluated the overall roadway layout on Francisco to determine whether diagonal parking is feasible within the current roadway extents of Francisco Blvd. The proposed layout shows a 4.8 ft wide sidewalk, 19.9 ft wide 45-degree parking area, and 12 ft wide lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions. In order to determine if this configuration is adequate from a circulation standpoint, Sandis performed an analysis using the Autoturn program. Refer to Exhibit 2, Diagonal Parking Exhibit, which shows the movement of a vehicle exiting one of the diagonal stalls and then traveling southbound on Francisco Blvd. As indicated on, a vehicle can stay within the southbound lane extents when backing out and turning to travel southbound.
Summary and Recommendations
Based on our review of the proposed parking and travel lane layout, we believe that the diagonal parking configuration is acceptable and does not create a safety concern. Maintaining the 12 ft wide travel lanes and installing a center lane stripe will promote traffic calming and encourage vehicles to travel at slower speeds between the Brighton and Clarendon Rd intersections.
Please contact me at [email protected] with any questions or should you require additional information.
Regards,
SANDIS
Ronald Sanzo, PE, TE, PTOE
Director of Engineering
Attachments: Traffic Count Data, Exhibit 1 - Line of Sight Exhibit, Exhibit 2 - Diagonal Parking Exhibit BUILD ON. I5
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Francisco Blvd & Brighton Rd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 22-080222-001 Francisco Bird Day: Wednesday
City: Pacifica SOUTHBOUND Date: 8/3/2022
08:00 AM -09:00 AM AM 2 88 52 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
PEAK HOURS NONE NOON NOON NONE COUNT PERIODS
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 8 185 118 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 6 0 16 -
CONTROL 0 + 0 0 0
0 0 1-Way Stop(EB) 0 0 0
Brighton Rd EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
4 4 TEV 149 330 0 0 0
AM NOON PM
→ 0 PHF 0.83 0.90
→ 0 0 0
3 0 11
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
Totals (AM) PM 196 0 8 114 0 PM Total Bikes (AM)
88 NOON 0 0 NOON
t2 + 1
4J 91 0 4 48 0 AM 0g to
AM
0→ - 0 0→ + 0
37 F0 NORTHBOUND 07 F0
Francisco Blvd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
NOON NOON 03 to
0→ + 0 0→ -0
09 07
PM PM
NOON 0 NOON
AM 6 AM
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
AM 2 AM
NOON 0 NOON
~185 PM → PM
ti
4J to
0→ -0 NOON NOON 0→ 650 + 0
117 17
00 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location: Francisco Blvd & Brighton Rd
City: Pacifica Project ID: 22-080222-001
Control: 1-Way Stop(EB) Date: 8/3/2022
Data - Totals
NS/EW Streets: Francisco Bivd Francisco Bivd Brighton Rd Brighton Rd
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
AM 0
NL NT NR NU SR SU EL ET ER •E- WR TOTAL
7:00 AM 11
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM ›0000000u
8:00 AM
8:15 AM OOONNE Dood
8:30 AM
8:45 AM 12
NL NT NR SL ST SR ET ER WL TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES: 57 118 6 0 201
APPROACH %'s : 9.52% 90.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.16% 4.84% 0.00% 42.86% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% PEAK HR : TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL: 48 88 4 149
PEAK HR FACTOR: 0.500 0.857 0.000 0.000 0.759 0.350 00000 0.375 00000 00000 0.000 0.000 20000
0.000 0.333 0.000
0.813 0.776 0.350 0.828
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
4:15 PM 4:151
OZNNNHANTA 0000000050 000 0 000020 00000000g0 0000000020 MOMNNOMOPO 00000000 -UNWONN-SO 0000000020 0000000050 00000000F0 $88838··ç
NL NT ST
TOTAL VOLUMES: 15 213 348 TOTAL
APPROACH %'s : 6.58% 93.42% 0.00% 96.40% 3.60% 0.00% 30.43% 0.00% 69.57% 0.00% PEAK HR: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL: 11 0 330
PEAK HR FACTOR: 0.500 0.000 0.550 0.000 00000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.782 0.846 0.750 0.897
SPECU
Francisco Blvd N/O Brighton Rd
Day: Wednesday City: Pacifica
Date: 8/3/2022 Project#: CA22_080223_001
Summary
Time < 15 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60- 64 65 - 69 70 + Total 00:00 AM 5 2 0 11
01:00 4 2 0 0
02:00
03:00
04:00 2
05:00 12
06:00 20 7
07:00 15 13 21 25 80
08:00 10 31 28 27 109
09:00 14 21 64 28 135
10:00 11 44 76 38 177
11:00 17 53 88 37 203
12:00 PM 11 38 85 48 196
13:00 17 45 78 39 193
14:00 11 52 73 47 198
15:00 14 11 50 105 47 228
16:00 9 10 78 123 52 3 • 0 ° 283
17:00 16 17 66 131 66 299
18:00 12 44 122 52 235
19:00 30 74 44 11 172
20:00 3 25 54 31 3 118
21:00 2 15 39 10 0 71
22:00 8 20 3 4 0 35
23:00 1 0 2 9 8 1 21
Totals 181 103 629 1239 626 72 11 2861
% of Totals 6% 4% 22% 43% 22% 3% 0% 100%
AM Volumes 79 26 176 326 179 21 812
% AM 3% 1% 6% 11% 6% 1% 0% 28%
AM Peak Hour 11:00 09:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 08:00 01:00 11:00 Volume 17 53 38 203
PM Volumes 102 77 453 913 447 51 2049
% PM 4% 3% 16% 32% 16% 0% 72%
PM Peak Hour 13:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 19:00 14:00 17:00 Volume 17 17 78 131 66 11 299
Directional Peak Periods AM 7-9 NOON 12-2 PM 4-6 Off Peak Volumes All Speeds Volume Volume Volume Volume
189 +» 7% 389 14% 582 20% 1701 59%
Percentiles
Street Name Direction
15th 50th Average 85th 95th ADT
Francisco Blvd Summary 21 27 26 32 35 2861
1 INCH = 40 FT
100' - CLEAR AREA
305
215' - CLEAR SPACE
FRANCISCO BLVD
18.8'-
• 0 0
BRIGHTON RD CLARENDON RD
SANDIS SURERS NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
LINE OF SIGHT EXHIBIT EX-1
APPROVED BY. HEADQUARTERS PROJECT
CENTRAL VALLEY EAST BA PACIFICA CALIFORNIA
KASHTO 2004 (US FRANCISCO BLVD
ASHTO 200Y MASHTO 2004 (US)
res,
MASHTO 3904
I-12'- —12'- 4' 10' 20' 40'
TINCH = 20 FT
19.9'
4.8'
PROPOSED
CENTERLINE STRIPING
EXISTING
CURB LINE
CLARENDON RD
DATE: 01-09-2023 SHEET
SCALE: 1*=20'
SANDIS BY: DIAGONAL PARKING EXHIBIT EX-2
BUILD ON. PROJECT No.:
SANDIS.NET 622114
File: X: \P\622114\4_ENGINEERING \3_EXHIBITS\2023-01-09 Diagonal Parking Exhibit\EX-2.dwg Date: Jan 10, 2023 - 3:47 PM
EXHIBIT C
DIRECTORS STAFF
THOMAS J. PICCOLOTTI, President ADRIANNE CARR, PH.D.
JACK BURGETT, Vice-President porth Coast Coun GENERAL MANAGER JOSHUA COSGROVE, Director
SCOTT DALTON
RON ASH, Director ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
ANNE DE JARNATT, Director - OPERATIONS
RUSSELL CONROY, Phone (650) 355-3462
Director Emeritus
2400 Francisco Blvd. Fax (650 355-0735
P.O. Box 1039 WATER DISTRICT
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.nccwd.com
October 27, 2022 via email
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, California 94044
RE: Status of NCCWD Planning Application, File No. 2022-007 Dear Mr. Woodhouse:
As you know, the District has been working to rebuild its District Headquarters facility at 2400 Francisco Boulevard. The District has acted in good faith in improving the District Headquarters facility, and reached out to the City early on in the process (May 2021) to make sure the District followed the City's requirements and that the plans aligned with the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
The District's goals are to improve the safety of its employees and customers, and to increase the efficiency and functionality of its facility in order to improve water service to the community and City of Pacifica. There are no plans to increase staff or change the way the District operates, only replacement of an out of date building (that was not designed for the computer age) and completion of important seismic retrofits to our existing maintenance building.
Unfortunately, the District has been met with roadblocks from the City's Planning Department, the latest of which is receiving absolutely no response to our Planning Application (File No. 2022-007) that was resubmitted (for the third time) on September 14'h. Per the City's policy, the City was obligated to respond to the District's resubmitted application by October 14". Not only did we not receive a response to our application, Planning staff have not even responded back to multiple emails that we have sent them asking about the status of the application.
The District initially submitted its Planning Application on March 21, 2022 and has resubmitted its application two additional times on June 16" and September 14" to respond to the City's requests after receiving Determinations of Incompleteness letters. District staff met with City staff after each Determination of Incompleteness was received to ask questions and make sure that we had all the correct information before resubmitting our application.
After receiving the first Determination of Incompleteness, the District provided Planning staff with its CEQA memorandum that describes in detail why the project is exempt from CEQA and was the basis of the District's CEQA exemption determination. The District has repeatedly asked Planning to review this CEQA memorandum, but has yet to receive a response from the City about this review.
District staff met with Planning staff on April 25'h to try and address concerns expressed in the April 20" Incompleteness Determination letter. The District expressed that asking for a noise study and traffic counts was not appropriate, given that those are CEQA-related studies that capture environmental impacts of a project, and these studies aren't warranted for a project that does not change the use at all from the existing use of the facility. There will be no change from existing conditions because of the new building, therefore additional study is not required under CEQA. Even though the District disagreed that it should be required to undertake such studies, the District completed these studies in good faith and submitted them to the City. In response to completing these studies, the District has received repeated requests for additional requirements for these studies that seem obstructive, especially after receiving vague guidance and no criteria (such as noise criteria or standards for a noise study) when it was requested from City staff.
Time delays cost money. The District's original project schedule was conservatively established in May 2021, 17 months ago, in conjunction with an initial planning meeting with the City, that had construction beginning in late 2022. Construction costs in a pre-inflation era could escalate 7% between design and construction, but inflationary pressures will drive up the costs of delays on our project even higher. In addition, without planning approval, the District is unable to submit the plans for its building permit under the current building code for which they were designed. This will require costly updates to our plans and additional project requirements to meet the new codes. These costs are ultimately passed along to the people of Pacifica.
These delays and lack of responses to critical path items are extremely frustrating and are ultimately costing the residents of the City of Pacifica. Can we have a meeting to understand how we can work together to overcome these roadblocks and get back on track? Adrianne Carr
General Manager
EXHIBIT D TO DISTRICT APPEAL
MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Modify Condition 11 related to relocation of the TSPP space as follows: With construction on the Project site as a result of the Project, there is a health and safety risk for any individual residing at the physical location of the Temporary Safe Parking Program Space (TSPP) located adjacent to the Project site on Francisco Boulevard. Accordingly, prior to commencement of any construction activity on the Project site or commencement of any preparatory work prior to construction activity that requires access to the physical location of the TSPP space located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, the City shall relocate the TSPP space to another location by September 30, 2023.
Delete Condition 12 related to eliminating angled parking.
Modify Condition 21 related to repaving as follows: Prior to final inspection, Applicant shall patch paving and make repairs to the streets, sidewalks, and curbs that are impacted by the project. All pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind by Applicant.
Delete Condition 24 related to eliminating third driveway on Clarendon Road.
Delete Condition 32 related to covering existing fuel station.