CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/28/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Joint Study Session of City Council and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) to discuss committee survey results and consideration of revisions to OSPAC's authorizing resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to the City Manager after consideration of survey results and OSPAC's request.
STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP, Planning Director - (650) 738-7341 [email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council’s Priority Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 included Item No. 13 – Review City Commission and Committee Charters. Staff’s efforts on this item started in the third quarter of FY 2022-23 and have continued into FY 2023-24. The following is a brief outline of efforts on this work plan item both generally and specific to consideration of the “charter” (i.e., authorizing resolution) for the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC):
• April 11, 2022: Adoption of FY 2022-23 Priority Work Plan. This action established a review of all commission and committee charters as a priority for the City Council. • March 27, 2023: City Council discussion and direction on order of commission/committee reviews and approach to gathering information from commission/committee members about their work.
• April 10, 2023: City Council creation of an ad hoc subcommittee to work on the review of commission/committee charters. The ad hoc subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Bigstyck and Councilmember Bier, has assisted staff with the creation of survey questions for the OSPAC members to gauge their responses on various topics related to their work.
• July 17, 2023: Consistent with the City Council ad hoc subcommittee’s input, staff launched an online survey to seek individual OSPAC member input. • July 19, 2023: Discussion of collective survey questions by committee members at the monthly OSPAC meeting.
• August 16, 2023: OSPAC vote on draft resolution (i.e., charter) for City Council consideration (Attachment A).
I. OSPAC’s Requested Modifications to Its Charter
The OSPAC voted 7-0 (with one absence and one vacant seat) at its regular meeting on August 16, 2023, to transmit the draft resolution in Attachment A to City Council. The draft resolution is the OSPAC’s preferred new authorizing resolution to replace the existing authorizing resolution adopted in 2015 (discussed further, below). Key provisions in the draft resolution not in the current authorizing resolution are summarized as follows:
• A statement that “equitable access to Parklands and Open Spaces is an important component of addressing systemic injustices and inequalities.” Pacifica City Council 2
August 28, 2023
• Key issues for the OSPAC’s advice in the open space context include “equity, access, safety, connectivity, economics, scenic beauty, and effects on adjacent neighborhoods.”
• The OSPAC’s unique qualifications to “engage the public, to provide valuable recommendations on [open space issues], and provide input in a community forum to safeguard the benefits of Open Spaces and Parklands for current and future generations.”
• Addition of California Coastal Conservancy lands to those within the OSPAC’s purview.
• Engagement and collaboration with other City Committee’s and the Pacifica Land Trust to “protect Open Space lands described in the City’s General and Coastal Plans.”
• Members may assist staff with identifying sources of funding for open space preservation, acquisition, enhancement, and maintenance. Funding sources could be as varied as grants, bond or parcel tax measures or community fund raising resources.
• A requirement for development project applicants to participate in a public study session during the OSPAC’s monthly meetings
o The requirement would apply to vacant parcels in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and vacant parcels adjacent to existing parklands, or existing and proposed trails (the current authorizing resolution only applies to properties listed in the Open Space Task Force report)
o The purpose of the study session is for the applicant to share their design and vision, to establish an opportunity for the public to have a voice, and for the OSPAC to work with the applicant collaboratively in the early conceptual stage, as soon as practicable after the initial application package is submitted and as a condition of an application being deemed “complete” for further processing, to bring stakeholders together to identify opportunities to bring value to the project and for open space preservation, natural resource protection, and public benefit.
o Recommendations and comments from the OSPAC would be incorporated into the Planning Department’s staff report to the Planning Commission on the project proposal.
City Council Creation of the OSPAC
In 2013, the City Council decided to combine two prior committees with varying responsibilities to advise City Council on open space matters – the Open Space Advisory Committee and Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Committee – to create the OSPAC. The City Council directed the work of the OSPAC by resolution in 2013 and again by rescinding the 2013 resolution and adopting Resolution No. 44-2015 on November 23, 2015 (the “Resolution”; Attachment B). The Resolution provides the stated objectives of the OSPAC, which are to make recommendations to the City Council on: (1) the policy and procedures of the National Park Service (“NPS”) as they relate to areas of the GGNRA within the City of Pacifica and adjacent communities; (2) Issues surrounding the transfer of ownership of Cattle Hill and the Pedro Point Headlands to the NPS; (3) access and operation of the San Mateo County Parks in the City of Pacifica including the San Pedro Valley County Park and the Devil’s Slide Trail County Park; and (4) ways in which these areas can contribute to the economy of the City.
Pacifica City Council 3
August 28, 2023
The Resolution also states that the OSPAC may advise applicants1 on properties listed in the Open Space Task Force (OSTF) Report2 and specified that the OSTF Report should “remain the basic reference” for the OSPAC.
Open Space Task Force Report
The First Edition of the Open Space Task Force Report (OSTF) was published in 1988, with an updated Second Edition published in 2000. The OSTF included 34 recommendations to City Council. Many of the recommendations contained in the OSTF Report have been implemented since 1988. A number of recommendations recognized the role of the Planning Commission in development review and setting land use policy, and were structured as recommendations to the Planning Commission on General Plan, zoning, and other land use regulation amendments that would further the purposes of the OSTF Report. Notably, review of development projects by an open space committee was not one of the 34 recommendations to City Council contained in the OSTF Report. In fact, Recommendation 14.a states that the OSTF Report “should be used as a reference by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the PB&R Commission and City staff to identify issues of concern when evaluating land use proposals and when considering issues relating to open space.”
In recent years, the OSPAC has generally performed work consistent with the Resolution.
Notable efforts have included assisting the community with neighborhood impacts from increased visitation to Mori Point since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The OSPAC has also led the annual Preservation Award nomination process, and OSPAC Members have organized social clean-up events on Cattle Hill to improve/restore trails on that City-owned open space.
II. Survey of OSPAC Members
The City Council has directed that the charter update process include a survey of the commission/committee members. The process outlined by the ad hoc subcommittee includes a survey of the commission/committee collectively, discussed at a regular meeting thereof, and an individual member survey completed privately using an online survey tool. The surveys are intended to gauge the opinions of commission/committee members about their service to the City and opportunities to improve the functioning of their commissions/committees. A summary of each survey is provided below:
Collective Survey
The OSPAC discussed the collective survey questions at its regular meeting on July 19, 2023.
The collective survey included seven questions addressing various aspects of the OSPAC’s work including the types of activities the OSPAC should undertake and advice the OSPAC should provide to City Council. A summary of the discussion is included as Attachment C.
Eight of the OSPAC’s nine members were present for the discussion.
Some common themes in the OSPAC’s discussion included members’ beliefs that the OSPAC provides an important community engagement function, that it could provide a role to facilitate funding for open space stewardship and transfers to other management agencies, that the OSTRF Report may be due for an update, and that the OSPAC’s charter should be expanded to provide a formal role in development project review.
1 This provision in Resolution No. 44-2015 reads as follows: “…the committee may also advise applicants on properties listed in the Open Space Task Force report and on other open space issues.
Recommendations of the committee will be solely advisory.” 2 The OSTF Report is comprised of Volume 1 and Volume 2.
Pacifica City Council 4
August 28, 2023
Individual Survey
The individual OSPAC member online survey was available for over one month prior to the joint study session. Detailed responses to the individual survey are included as Attachment D.
Some responses have been modified to preserve the confidentiality of respondents. The survey asked seven questions about the feelings of each OSPAC member related to their service on the committee, and about ways the OSPAC’s operations could be improved.
Six of the nine OSPAC members responded to the individual survey. In general, the OSPAC members seemed satisfied with their work and with their initial training upon joining the committee. Some common themes included members reporting their perceptions the meetings could be run in a way to increase participation and collaboration among members, and that online participation options could expand public involvement/participation. Some members also reported their belief that the OSPAC should have an expanded charter, such as to provide a formal role in development project review, and to ensure alignment with established City Council priorities. Members also provided individual input on various other items.
III. Staff Analysis
The OSPAC’s request to City Council in Attachment A involves five key topic areas:
1. Policy statements and clarifications, such as the importance of equity as an open space consideration, and the importance of the OSPAC’s role as a community forum for discussion and consideration of open space issues.
2. Expansion of the OSPAC’s purview to advise on open space matters for lands owned by an additional public agency, the California Coastal Conservancy.
3. Creation of a coordination role for the OSPAC with other City committees and the Pacifica Land Trust, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
4. Authorization of the OSPAC to consider funding sources related to open space.
5. Expansion of the OSPAC’s role in the development review process, including the types of properties subject to its review.
Staff is generally supportive of the OSPAC’s requests in #1, 2, 3, and 4, and believes they generally align with the recommendations in the OSTF Report. However, as summarized below, staff has numerous concerns related to OSPAC’s requests in #5.
Development Review Process
The development project review process is highly regulated by Federal, State, and local law.
Significant experience and expertise is required to effectively administer this process, and the City faces legal exposure if irregularities occur. The Planning Commission is the City body primarily charged with administering the development review process. It has attained a sufficient level of experience and expertise by meeting twice monthly to consider development projects and land use policy items, and is aided with significant staff support from the Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office as well as legislative documents such as the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Currently, the OSPAC is an advisory body only and meets once per month and infrequently3receives presentations from development project applicants, and the Resolution provides that the OSTF Report remains the “basic reference” for 3 Since 2020, the OSPAC has received presentations from four applicants for projects within the OSTF Report. By contrast, the Planning Commission has considered 38 development project applications between 2020-2022. Both the Planning Commission and the OSPAC receive staff support from the Planning Department.
Pacifica City Council 5
August 28, 2023
the OSPAC. Amending the OSPAC’s charter to change from an advisory body to the Council to making recommendations on development projects would be a significant change. As the Planning Commission has historically and regularly performs this development review function, commissioners are well versed in the complex areas involved in planning reviews, such as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Subdivision Map Act, and other legal land use principles.
The OSPAC’s request in #5, if granted by City Council, would be to effectively establish the OSPAC as an additional planning agency component of the City’s development review process which is closely governed by State Law. Empowering the OSPAC to consider development projects will create another layer of administration. Another consideration is that to perform the duties of another development review body, the OSPAC would need additional education and training to effectively perform the duties described in the draft resolution (Attachment A). Such additional training would include topics such as the City’s relevant legislative and policy documents (e.g., the General Plan, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, etc.), due process principles under U.S. and State Constitutions, limits on governmental exactions on private property such as nexus and rough proportionality, the CEQA, the Subdivision Map Act and other fundamental laws that restrict government regulation on private development permits.
While the OSPAC Members could certainly be trained on these additional areas of expertise, this would require a major commitment of Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office staff resources to train and advise OSPAC members. Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office staff resources are already significantly committed to execution of the City Council’s FY 2023-2030 Strategic Plan and other routine departmental functions. For example, staff and the City Attorney’s office would need to spend considerable effort in amending the Municipal Code to include OSPAC as an additional planning body in the City’s development review process.
Additionally, the City Clerk’s Office staff would also need to become involved to ensure annual completion of Form 700 financial conflict of interest disclosures and periodic Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 ethics training that would be required for an expanded OSPAC role in the development review process.
An expanded role for the OSPAC in the development review process would also increase costs for project applicants. Staff estimates that, at minimum, review by the OSPAC would add at least $1,000 to processing costs for Planning Department staff time alone, and potentially significantly more when City Attorney’s Office assistance is required. Projects within the OSTF Report presented to the OSPAC have included not only larger multi-unit development projects, but also single-family residential projects. Cost increases of this sort can be impactful to individual applicants for smaller projects.
Providing the OSPAC an expanded role in the development review process also calls into question the appropriateness of such an action relative to other City commissions/committees.
Economic development issues are of increasing importance to the City, and the Economic Development Committee could follow the OSPAC’s example and request review of development projects to advise on matters related to revenue generation and economic development. Or, the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Committee could request review of development projects in areas perceived to be hazardous. Similar examples could be provided for other commissions/committees. A process requiring hearings by multiple commissions/committees to consider development projects would be untenable under current staffing conditions. The City’s current development review process recognizes the need for a reasonable level of review and centralizes the responsibility to consider all relevant factors of a development with the Planning Commission.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there may be legal impediments to adding this level of review as part of the application review process. For example, the OSPAC would not be able to consider ministerial projects that are not subject to a discretionary review hearing (e.g., ADUs or Pacifica City Council 6
August 28, 2023
SB 9 projects). In addition, for those projects that are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which requires, among other things, that certain housing development projects be reviewed for completeness within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the application against an established list of items necessary for a determination of completeness,4 adding this additional layer of review which is not a part of the City’s established checklist could interfere with the City’s ability to make the determination of completeness within the PSA timelines.
Moreover, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would likely reject any completeness item that requires a developer to have a hearing with the OSPAC. The HCD is the state agency charged with administering state housing laws. Adding processes and costs for residential development projects may not withstand increasing scrutiny of local development review processes by the HCD. The agency has taken an aggressive approach in recent years to oppose local land use regulations that add processing time, vague procedural hurdles, and cost to processing of residential projects. Indeed, HCD’s comment letter on the City’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element already calls into question some of the City’s existing development review procedural requirements5.
It is with consideration of the factors outlined above that the City Manager recommends against additional procedural requirements for housing projects at this time. Similarly, the City Manager recommends against expanding the site eligibility criteria for review by the OSPAC to include vacant parcels in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and vacant parcels adjacent to existing parklands, or existing and proposed trails. It is challenging to define these parcels without specific, extensive analysis. Furthermore, inclusion of these criteria could potentially add hundreds of sites to the requirement for review by the OSPAC, further burdening staff and increasing processing costs for affected applicants. A major increase in the number of projects required to be heard by the OSPAC could also limit the ability of the committee to focus on other priority work identified by the City Council.
IV. City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager recommends the following in relation to the OSPAC charter:
1. Validate the ongoing relevance of provisions in the existing OSPAC authorizing Resolution.
2. Consider the addition of OSPAC’s requests in #1, 2, 3, and 4 but provide more clarity on the extent of the authority and new roles of the OSPAC.
3. Direct OSPAC to focus on implementation of one or more recommendations in the OSTF Report that have not been completed.
4. Add coordination of trail improvement social “work days” to the OSPAC’s list of responsibilities.
5. Direct staff to incorporate these revisions into an updated draft resolution to be considered by City Council at a future meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
In analyzing this issue, staff identified a narrowly expanded role for the OSPAC in the development review process that might be feasible for the Council to consider, but still carries staff resource and development review timeline impacts and costs, and potential legal concerns:
4 Government Code § 65943(a).
5 See comments in the “Local Processing and Permit Procedures” section of the HCD’s comment letter dated August 8, 2023. The comments call into question “highly discretionary” processes with “subjective findings and minimal guidance to promote certainty and objectivity” in relation to approval of multifamily housing.
Pacifica City Council 7
August 28, 2023
• Establish a requirement for Planning Department staff to present to the OSPAC prior to application completeness, but not as a requirement for completeness for certain development projects subject to discretionary review.
o Staff bears the responsibility to present, with notice of the opportunity to participate provided to applicants.
o Limit site eligibility criteria to only those sites identified in the OSTF Report. o Due to Permit Streamlining Act time constraints on project processing and other legal mandates for project review, limit Planning Department staff analysis to attachment of the existing project plans as submitted, with a brief summary of the key project characteristics (e.g., number of residential units and commercial floor area proposed), and summary of OSTF Report site narrative. o Provide specific criteria to be evaluated by the OSPAC, as follows:
▪ Evaluate the relationship of the project to the key site features identified in the OSTF Report.
▪ Identify opportunities to create or expand public access, or prevent loss of existing public access, on or through the site to existing publicly-owned open space areas surrounding the project site.
• Establish a two-year sunset after which the expanded development review provisions shall expire unless extended by the City Council.
• Require the OSPAC annual report before the two-year sunset to describe the specific input provided for each project reviewed, a summary of Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office staff time utilized to support the project reviews, and a calculation of costs to project applicants associated with the reviews.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
City Council’s Priority Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 included Item No. 13 – Review City Commission and Committee Charters.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact from this study session item. Fiscal impacts to the City and/or project applicants could result from an expanded role for OSPAC in the development review process.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft new authorizing resolution for the OSPAC (DOCX) Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. 44-2015 (PDF) Attachment C - Summary of responses to OSPAC collective survey questions (DOCX) Attachment D - Summary of responses to OSPAC individual survey questions (DOCX)