Pacifica planning panel approves expansion of Palmetto Avenue storage facility

The Pacifica Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a coastal development permit, site development permit and use permit for an expansion of an existing storage facility at 1021 Palmetto Avenue.

The project, as described by contract planner Jacob Garcia, would expand the facility to a total of 58,962 square feet by converting five commercial office spaces and a caretaker unit into storage and by constructing a new single‑story, roughly 1,750‑square‑foot building with seven garage‑style units. Garcia told the commission the application requires approval under Pacifica Municipal Code sections for use permits (9‑4.1202.I), site development permits (9‑4.3201.A) and coastal development permits (9‑4.4302.Z.6).

The commission’s approval, adopted unanimously, includes conditions and a direction from commissioners that the new north facade include at least one false window to match existing architectural detail. Chair Hauser asked the applicant to provide “some level of fenestration on that north portion” so the new facade reads consistently with the existing building; the commission incorporated that request into the conditions of approval.

Why it matters: The decision allows the owner to increase on‑site storage capacity in a neighborhood zoned for service commercial uses that the city’s general plan and coastal land‑use plan identify as appropriate for service‑oriented industrial and storage uses. Commissioners and the applicant framed the project as meeting demand from residents and small businesses while remaining within the site’s current land‑use designation.

Key facts and debate: Staff said the site is in the West Sharp Park neighborhood in the C‑3 commercial zoning district and that no general plan amendment or rezoning is proposed. Garcia summarized the proposal and the site context, noting the lot is about 47,182 square feet and currently contains two buildings: Building A, a two‑story structure (about 9,624 square feet) with existing storage, five office spaces and a caretaker unit; and Building B, a three‑story building (about 47,588 square feet) with storage and three office spaces.

Project drawings and staff materials show no exterior changes to Buildings A and B but call for a new Building C (single story, about 1,750 square feet) on a portion of the existing parking area. The plan would convert existing interior office and caretaker space into additional storage units and add landscaping; the proposal reduces on‑site parking from 20 spaces to 12 while increasing landscaped area slightly (from about 4,627 to about 4,738 square feet, or roughly 9.8% to 10% of the site).

The applicant, Ben Wagstaff of the management company, told the commission that “self storage is still in extremely high demand in the local, Pacifica area serving residents and businesses.” He said the management team expects a portion of the additional units to serve local contractors and small businesses and described the conversion as a response to weak local office demand.

Commissioners asked about housing loss and stormwater. Resident commenter Mike Wallman asked how the project would mitigate the loss of the on‑site caretaker unit and any housing impacts. Garcia and staff responded that because the parcel is in a commercial zoning district and the proposal is not a housing project, state replacement‑housing rules do not create a nexus to require on‑site replacement; additionally, multiunit housing is not an allowed use in the site’s C‑3 zone. Garcia summarized this position for the commission: the project “wouldn’t require the replacement housing” under the applicable rules.

On stormwater and impervious area, staff and the applicant referred to the project’s technical attachments. The applicant’s engineer and staff noted that the building addition covers existing parking and that the net new impervious area associated with the proposal is below the jurisdictional threshold requiring C‑3 regional stormwater treatment. Staff cited the technical materials in the record showing total proposed impervious area and the mitigation approach (some new pervious landscaping and a drainage swale to help manage runoff into the existing storm system).

Public comment and mitigation for displaced tenants: The applicant said several office spaces had been intermittently occupied (three to four over the past year); two were active businesses (a property manager and an engineer) while other units were used more passively. The applicant said they contacted current tenants and offered relocation assistance and first access to larger storage units when available; the commission’s record contains those statements as the applicant’s mitigation steps.

Vote and next steps: The commission approved Use Permit UP‑139‑24, Site Development Permit PSD‑868‑24 and Coastal Development Permit CDP‑461‑24 by unanimous vote and adopted the staff resolution with the added condition requiring a false window on the new north facade. The project will proceed to building‑permit review and must comply with the conditions listed in the commission’s resolution and related exhibits.

Votes at a glance: • Motion to approve project (UP‑139‑24 / PSD‑868‑24 / CDP‑461‑24): unanimous approval; second from Commissioner Godwin; condition added to show a false window on the new north facade. (Record: motion text and vote recorded in meeting minutes.) • Approval of meeting minutes (January 21, 2025 and October 21, 2024): approved unanimously earlier in the meeting.

What the record does not show: The transcript and staff report do not include a final building permit issuance date, a construction timeline or a detailed plan for replacement housing funding because the project was not treated as a housing project under applicable rules. The commission incorporated staff reports, project drawings and public testimony into the administrative record for its decision.

Looking ahead: The applicant will proceed with permits and building‑permit submittals subject to the conditions in the resolution. Staff said required notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet and published as required for coastal projects.