Agenda — Pacifica City Council, March 14, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Section 7. Publication; Certification.

The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law. The City Clerk is also authorized and directed to file this Ordinance, Map 505b, the census blocks and tracts, the GIS shapefile, and any other documents, as may be necessary, to effectuate the adoption of Map 505b with the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters. In the case of any parcels that are split across Council district boundaries, the County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters shall apply a uniform methodology to adjust the boundary line to a border of the parcel without materially affecting the population within each affected district.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ___________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 12 Packet Pg. 274
Pacifica City Council 11 March 14, 2022
* * * * *
(ID # 4918) at 3/14/2022 6:00 PM City Council Regular Meeting 12 Packet Pg. 275

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of a Resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential, and introduction of an Ordinance to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18 to rezone from the R-1/B-4/HPD zoning district to the P-D/HPD zoning district and to authorize a single-family residential use, filed by Matthew and Margaret Murphy, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110) in Pacifica (File No. 2018-057). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Resolution and Ordinance, and approved Specific Plan SP-169- 18, Variance PV-526-18, and Parking Exception PE-191-21 for construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with a two-car garage on the 24,149-sf undeveloped parcel, by a vote of 7-0 on January 18, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of March 28, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning – (650) 738-7341 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Planning Department staff provided public notice as required by law for a public hearing to consider the subject project at this City Council meeting. However, due to considerations related to including a manageable number of business items on the City Council’s agenda, it is recommended that this public hearing be continued to the City Council’s next regular meeting on March 28, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

None identified.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Review of the proposed project is not directly associated with a City Council goal or an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. Serving in a legislative capacity is a routine function of the City Council as part of its normal governance process as established in the Pacifica Municipal Code and in State Law.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact. Processing costs for this item are paid by the applicant.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
13 Packet Pg. 276

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped lot known as TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030); and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2021- 018)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization and finding 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 CONTACTS:

Bonny O’Connor, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7443
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The following section provides the relevant background of the project as well as discussion of the appeal.

A. BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-003 by a vote of 7 to 0 finding construction of a 3,373-square foot (sf), single-family dwelling and accessory building on a 7,289-sf undeveloped lot at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) (“Project”) exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving, with conditions, Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, (“Development Permits”) (Attachment B). The staff report and minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of January 18, 2022, are included as Attachments C and D, respectively.

The project plans are included as Attachment E.

B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
On January 25, 2022, Kathy Gust, Ila and Ron Homsher, Karla Diaz, Leo Leon and Kris Geiger, and John and Marlin Handley (hereafter “Appellants”) timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Development Permits for the Project (Attachment F). The Appellants cited several reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below.
14 Packet Pg. 277
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
Basis 1. Disagree/appeal that the Project is in conformity with the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program, Protection of Landforms, Site Planning, Building Design, Hillside Development, Excavation, Visual Impact and Hillside Conformity Staff Response: The Appellants provided no additional details related to this basis in their appeal form or letter. Detailed below is staff’s review of the topics.

Staff presented an analysis of the Project’s conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), including policies related to protection of landforms in Section 3.A.i of the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment C). Additionally, in the same section of the Planning Commission staff report, staff presented an analysis of the Project’s conformity with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, including site planning, building design, hillside development (excavation and visual impact). It should be noted that the Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. Rather, they address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and the Planning Commission may still find the project consistent with the Design Guidelines. It is up to the Commission’s discretion to determine the appropriate balance and relative priority of the guidelines for a particular project when considering whether a project has achieved Design Guidelines consistency.

After consideration of all the information materials included in the public hearing record, the Planning Commission adopted staff’s recommended analysis finding the Project, as conditioned, in conformity with the City’s LCP and Design Guidelines. 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 this basis of appeal.

Basis 2. Disagree/appeal that the Project is in conformity with Height, Drainage Plan, Geotechnical Review, Traffic Safety and Operation Plan.

Staff Response: The Appellants provided no additional details related to this basis in their appeal form or letter. Detailed below is staff’s review of the topics.

Height
The underlying zoning district of the Project site is the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. The R-1 zoning district establishes 35 feet as the maximum height of a building1. The height of a building is the maximum vertical distance, measured at the finished grade, between the lowest point on the site covered by any portion of a building to the topmost point of the roof2. Sheets A3.2 through A3.4 of the Project plans (Attachment E) show the height of the building as 34’-6.5” which is below the 35-foot maximum established in the R-1 zoning district using the method of measuring height prescribed in Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) sec. 9-

4.243.

The accessory detached garage building, which is proposed to include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) below the garage, would have a maximum building height of 16 feet. Local ADU regulations establish a 16-foot height maximum for an ADU attached to an accessory structure located between the primary dwelling unit and the site’s front property line 3 . Sheets
A3.2 through A3.4 of the Project plans (Attachment E) show the height of the accessory building meets the 16-foot height maximum.
1 PMC sec. 9-4.402(j)
2 PMC sec. 9-4.243
3 PMC sec. 9-4.453(d)(4)
14 Packet Pg. 278
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
The Coastal Zone overlay district does not establish a zoning height maximum that would affect the height maximum of the R-1 zoning district. For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the City has accurately measured the proposed buildings’ height and that the Project is in compliance with the applicable height limit of the R-1 zoning district.

Therefore, downhill adjacent properties and the City’s stormwater system are not anticipated to receive any increased storm water runoff rates as a result of the Project. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4 of Resolution No. 2022-003 requires the applicant to have a qualified professional engineer review, and if necessary, revise the hydrology calculations prepared in the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report and the drainage design shown on Sheet C2.1 Grading and Drainage Plan prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that any modifications from the design considered in the preliminary hydrology calculations are appropriately captured in the final drainage design.

The applicant also provided a report titled “Geotechnical Investigation For Proposed New Residence at Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California” prepared by GeoForensics, Inc. in January 2021 and signed and stamped by Daniel Dyckman, a California Registered Professional Engineer (Attachment G). The report recommends, in part, under the heading Drainage Discharge that “[c]are should be taken not direct [sic] concentrated flows of water towards neighboring properties. This may require the use of multiple discharge points.” Condition of Approval No. 17 of Resolution No. 2022-003 requires the applicant to incorporate all recommendations of this report into the Project design prior to issuance of a building permit to the Building Official’s satisfaction.

While staff and the Planning Commission found that the Project, as conditioned, would meet the drainage requirements of the site, the applicant has coordinated with at least one downhill neighbor and has agreed to voluntarily increase the size of the proposed detention system for storm water on the site to address the neighbor’s concerns. The increased size would effectively double the capacity for storm water detention on the Project site. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a distribution design for the multiple discharge points (Attachment H).

The applicant has provided a supplemental letter from GeoForensics which states that the proposed distribution design for the multiple discharge points of storm water is substantially in conformance with the intent of the recommendations in the January 2021 report (Attachment I).

Staff has amended Condition of Approval No. 4 in Council’s draft resolution (Attachment A) to incorporate the surface water drainage design shown in the revised grading and drainage plan in Attachment H.

Geotechnical Review
The City’s planning application checklist required the applicant to provide a “[p]reliminary geotechnical report, including flood hazard and fault info. If project site is within an Alquist14 Packet Pg. 279
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
Priolo earthquake fault zone, submit a geologic report.” Additionally, PMC sec. 9-4.4404(b) requires a geotechnical survey if development is to occur in a qualifying setting. The Project would occur on a slope greater than 15 percent and therefore was required to provide a geotechnical report that met the content requirements of subsection (c) of PMC sec. 9-4.4404.

As noted above the applicant provided a report titled “Geotechnical Investigation For Proposed New Residence at Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California” prepared by GeoForensics, Inc. in January 2021 and signed and stamped by Daniel Dyckman, a California Registered Professional Engineer (Attachment G). Additionally, a supplemental letter with the subject of “Olympian Way Lot Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California Ocean Bluff Retreat Assessment” was also prepared by Daniel Dyckman of GeoForensics, Inc. Staff found the reports met the applicable content requirements of the planning application checklist and the PMC.

Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 17 of Resolution No. 2022-003 requires the applicant to incorporate all recommendations of this report into the Project prior to issuance of a building permit to the Building Official’s satisfaction.

Traffic Safety and Operation Plan
Public comments received during the Planning Commission public hearing included concerns related to the traffic and safety from the off-haul truck trips that would be required to remove the proposed cut from the site. Staff explained during the meeting that the City does not have a haul route ordinance to require approval of a haul route but that it is within the Commission’s discretion to require approval of a construction traffic control plan to allow safe ongoing operation by vehicular and pedestrian traffic with the addition of construction-related activity and equipment and any material staging. The Planning Commission’s approval included a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to submit a traffic control plan that addresses construction phase vehicle operation, parking, and material staging, and that shall ensure continued vehicular and pedestrian access through and along Olympian Way, which would be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer (see Condition of Approval No. 20 of Resolution No. 2022-003, Attachment B).

In summary, Planning Commission’s approval adequately addressed the topics of height, drainage plan, geotechnical review, and traffic safety for the Project. For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. Questions and concerns related to drainage, lot coverage, development height and other pertinent concerns were identified by the Appellants at the meeting and in written comments, but were not addressed at the hearing.

Staff Response: Written public comments received after the Planning Commission staff report publication and prior to 12 pm on January 18, 2022, were provided to the Planning Commission for their consideration prior to the hearing (Attachment J). Additionally, public comments were accepted during the public hearing (Attachment D). After consideration of all the information and materials included in the public hearing record, the Planning Commission included modifications to staff’s recommended conditions of approval, including conditions that would revise the project design to confine the driveway and associated improvements to within the portion of the public right-of-way within the Project site’s frontage; requiring that the final landscaping plan includes seven 24-inch box trees; and requiring the preparation of a traffic control plan that addresses the construction phase vehicle operation, parking, and materials staging.

As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment C), maximum lot coverage allowed under the applicable R-1 zoning district is 40 percent4. The building coverage includes 4 PMC sec. 9-4.402(h)
14 Packet Pg. 280
Pacifica City Council 5
March 14, 2022
all enclosed floor area which occupies a building site, including second story cantilevered floor area. Balconies, if not enclosed, roof overhangs, eaves, and similar architectural features are not included5. Title sheet A.0 of the Project plans (Attachment E) details the total lot coverage as 2,113 sf6. This coverage total is approximately 29 percent of the 7,289 sf lot, well below the 40 percent maximum allowable within the R-1 zoning district. Therefore, this coverage is in compliance with the R-1 zoning district.

Drainage and development height concerns are discussed above under Basis 2. In summary, the Planning Commission’s approval adequately considered the topics of drainage, lot coverage, and development height as well as other concerns identified by the Appellants. Staff has provided a thorough response to the issues as outlined in the appeal and has found substantial evidence that the Planning Commission acted appropriately and in accordance with the PMC. For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

C. 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 deny the Project, 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.

D. 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). The Project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption provided in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Section 15303 states in part:

Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
* * * * *
The subject proposal to construct a new single-family residence fits within the scope of a class 3 categorical exemption. Specifically, the Project involves construction of one single-family residence and an ADU in a zone which permits residential uses. For the foregoing reasons, 5 PMC sec. 9-4.215
6 The 45 sf shed that was previously described as part of the project has been removed. 14 Packet Pg. 281
Pacifica City Council 6
March 14, 2022
there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.

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): There is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. • 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 3 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.

E. 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 3 categorical exemption 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.

F. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
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 appeals 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 Project Applicant.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
14 Packet Pg. 282
Pacifica City Council 7
March 14, 2022
Attachment A Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (PDF) Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (PDF) Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (PDF) Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (PDF)
Attachment F Appeal Form and Letter (PDF)
Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (PDF)
Attachment H Proposed Revised Drainage Plan (PDF)
Attachment I Geotechnical Review Feb. 2022 (PDF)
Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (PDF) 14 Packet Pg. 283
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVLOPMENT PERMIT CDP-430-21 AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION (FILE NO. 2021-018), SUBJECT TO

CONDITIONS, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE

AND DETACHED GARAGE/ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT TBD OLYMPIAN WAY (APN 023-037-030) LOCATED BETWEEN 131 OLYMPIAN WAY AND 155

OLYMPIAN WAY, AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: San Pedro Valley, LLC (Applicant and Owner) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to construct a 3,373-sf, single-family dwelling and a 434-sf accessory dwelling unit (ADU) attached to a 603-sf detached garage located on a 7,289-sf undeveloped lot at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) located approximately 1,450 feet northwest of the intersection of Olympian Way and Grand Avenue between 131 Olympian Way and 155 Olympian Way in Pacifica (File No. 2021-018) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.4303 on the basis that the Project constitutes “development,” as defined in PMC Section 9-4.4302(z)(7), because it involves the “construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public or municipal utility”; and the Project does not qualify as a category of excluded development since it is located within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction (PMC Section 9-4.4303(i)(2)); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Heritage Tree Removal Authorization pursuant to PMC section 4-12.07(a) because the Project proposes removal of one heritage tree; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on January 18, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 2022-003, finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and heritage tree removal authorization on January 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Kathy Gust, Ila and Ron Homsher, Karla Diaz, Leo Leon and Kris Geiger, and John and Marlin Handley (“Appellants”) filed an appeal (“Appeal”) of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt Resolution No. 2022-003 on January 25, 2022; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on March 14, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

14.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
2 A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

B. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on January 18, 2022 of the project, and makes the following findings pertaining to this denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:

Basis 1. Disagree/appeal that the Project is in conformity with the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program, Protection of Landforms, Site Planning, Building Design, Hillside Development, Excavation, Visual Impact and Hillside Conformity Finding: The Appellants provided no additional details related to this basis in their appeal form or letter. Staff presented an analysis of the Project’s conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), including policies related to protection of landforms in Section 3.A.i of the Planning Commission staff report. Additionally, in the same section of the Planning Commission staff report, staff presented an analysis of the Project’s conformity with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, including site planning, building design, hillside development (excavation and visual impact). It should be noted that the Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. Rather, they address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and the Planning Commission may still find the project consistent with the Design Guidelines. It is up to the Commission’s discretion to determine the appropriate balance and relative priority of the guidelines for a particular project when considering whether a project has achieved Design Guidelines consistency.

Basis 2. Disagree/appeal that the Project is in conformity with Height, Drainage Plan, Geotechnical Review, Traffic Safety and Operation Plan.

Finding: The Appellants provided no additional details related to this basis in their appeal form or letter.

Sheets A3.2 through A3.4 of the Project plans show the height of the building as 34’-6.5” which 1 PMC sec. 9-4.402(j)
2 PMC sec. 9-4.243

14.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
3 is below the 35-foot maximum established in the R-1 zoning district using the method of measuring height prescribed in Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) sec. 9-4.243.

The Coastal Zone overlay district does not establish a zoning height maximum that would affect the height maximum of the R-1 zoning district. For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the City has accurately measured the proposed buildings’ height and that the Project is in compliance with the applicable height limit of the R-1 zoning district.

Drainage Plan
The City’s planning application checklist required the applicant to provide “[h]ydrology calculations based on a 100-year storm for the entire development, prepared by a registered professional, to determine the size of all proposed storm drain facilities and the impact on the existing system (storm drains, creeks, and waterways). If the calculations reveal that the city system would be negatively impacted, those impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology calculation report shall be signed and stamped by a registered engineer.” The applicant provided a Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, prepared by Round House Industries, Inc. on September 15, 2021, and signed and stamped by Michael O’Connell, a California Registered Professional Engineer. The report concluded that during a 100-year storm event, the anticipated runoff flow rates post-construction would be metered through 30 linear feet of a 36- inch detention pipe system to meet pre-construction runoff flow rates. Therefore, downhill adjacent properties and the City’s stormwater system are not anticipated to receive any increased storm water runoff rates as a result of the Project. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4 of Resolution No. 2022-003 requires the applicant to have a qualified professional engineer review, and if necessary, revise the hydrology calculations prepared in the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report and the drainage design shown on Sheet C2.1 Grading and Drainage Plan prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that any modifications from the design considered in the preliminary hydrology calculations are appropriately captured in the final drainage design.

The applicant also provided a report titled “Geotechnical Investigation For Proposed New Residence at Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California” prepared by GeoForensics, Inc. in January 2021 and signed and stamped by Daniel Dyckman, a California Registered Professional Engineer. The report recommends, in part, under the heading Drainage Discharge that “[c]are should be taken not direct [sic] concentrated flows of water towards neighboring properties. This may require the use of multiple discharge points.” Condition of Approval No. 17 of Resolution No. 2022-003 requires the applicant to incorporate all recommendations of this report into the Project design prior to issuance of a building permit to the Building Official’s satisfaction.

14.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
4 capacity for storm water detention on the Project site. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a distribution design for the multiple discharge points. The applicant has provided a supplemental letter from GeoForensics which states that the proposed distribution design for the multiple discharge points of storm water is substantially in conformance with the intent of the recommendations in the January 2021 report. Condition of Approval No. 4 in Council’s resolution incorporates the surface water drainage design shown in the revised grading and drainage plan in Attachment H of the March 14, 2022 staff report.

Geotechnical Review
The City’s planning application checklist required the applicant to provide a “[p]reliminary geotechnical report, including flood hazard and fault info. If project site is within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, submit a geologic report.” Additionally, PMC sec. 9-4.4404(b) requires a geotechnical survey if development is to occur in a qualifying setting. The Project would occur on a slope greater than 15 percent and therefore was required to provide a geotechnical report that met the content requirements of subsection (c) of PMC sec. 9-4.4404. As noted above the applicant provided a report titled “Geotechnical Investigation For Proposed New Residence at Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California” prepared by GeoForensics, Inc. in January 2021 and signed and stamped by Daniel Dyckman, a California Registered Professional Engineer.

Additionally, a supplemental letter with the subject of “Olympian Way Lot Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California Ocean Bluff Retreat Assessment” was also prepared by Daniel Dyckman of GeoForensics, Inc. Council found the reports met the applicable content requirements of the planning application checklist and the PMC.

Traffic Safety and Operation Plan
Public comments received during the Planning Commission public hearing included concerns related to the traffic and safety from the off-haul truck trips that would be required to remove the proposed cut from the site. Staff explained during the meeting that that the City does not have a haul route ordinance to require approval of a haul route but that it is within the Commission’s discretion to require approval of a construction traffic control plan to allow safe ongoing operation by vehicular and pedestrian traffic with the addition of construction-related activity and equipment and any material staging. The Planning Commission’s approval included a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to submit a traffic control plan that addresses construction phase vehicle operation, parking, and material staging, and that shall ensure continued vehicular and pedestrian access through and along Olympian Way, which would be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer (see Condition of Approval No. 20 of Resolution No. 2022-003).

Finding: Written public comments received after the Planning Commission staff report publication and prior to 12 pm on January 18, 2022, were provided to the Planning Commission for their consideration prior to the hearing. Additionally, public comments were accepted during the public

14.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
5 hearing. After consideration of all the information and materials included in the public hearing record, the Planning Commission included modifications to staff’s recommended conditions of approval, including conditions that would revise the project design to confine the driveway and associated improvements to within the portion of the public right-of-way within the Project site’s frontage; requiring that the final landscaping plan includes seven 24-inch box trees; and requiring the preparation of a traffic control plan that addresses the construction phase vehicle operation, parking, and materials staging.

As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report, maximum lot coverage allowed under the applicable R-1 zoning district is 40 percent4. The building coverage includes all enclosed floor area which occupies a building site, including second story cantilevered floor area. Balconies, if not enclosed, roof overhangs, eaves, and similar architectural features are not included5. Title sheet A.0 of the Project plans details the total lot coverage as 2,113 sf6. This coverage total is approximately 29 percent of the 7,289 sf lot, well below the 40 percent maximum allowable within the R-1 zoning district. Therefore, this coverage is in compliance with the R-1 zoning district.

Drainage and development height concerns are discussed above under Basis 2. In summary, the Planning Commission’s approval adequately considered the topics of drainage, lot coverage, and development height as well as other concerns identified by the Appellants. The City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that the Planning Commission acted appropriately and in accordance with the PMC. For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 exemption under CEQA. Guidelines Section 15303, as described below, applies to the Project:

Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
* * * * *
The subject proposal to construct a new single-family residence fits within the scope of a class 3 categorical exemption. Specifically, the Project involves construction of one single-family residence and an ADU in a zone which permits residential uses. For the foregoing reasons, there is 4 PMC sec. 9-4.402(h)
5 PMC sec. 9-4.215
6 The 45 sf shed that was previously described as part of the project has been removed.

14.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
6 substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.

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): There is no evidence in the record that the project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. • 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 as required by PMC section 9-4.4304(k):
i. Required Finding: The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

The City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) that contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. The proposed Project is consistent with several of these policies, as discussed below.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

The proposed Project does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. The development will be undertaken on a lot well away from the nearest coastal access point. Between the sea and the subject site there is substantial urban development and several streets. Therefore, the Project would have no impact or otherwise interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. • Coastal Act Policy No. 23: New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... [the remainder of this policy pertains to land divisions and visitor-serving facilities, neither of which are part of the subject Project.]

14.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
7 The new development proposed with this Project is located within an existing developed area. The Pedro Point/ Shelter Cove neighborhood is a substantially developed suburban neighborhood with subdivided lots, most of which have already been developed with single-family homes, including the lots on either side of the Project site. Therefore, development would not occur outside of existing developed areas.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall (a) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. [the remainder of this policy pertains to air pollution, energy consumption, protection of special communities, none of which would conflict with the Project.]
(a) The Project site is not located in area of high flood or fire hazards. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed improvements can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to minimize risk to life and property due to geologic hazards. The applicant has also provided an assessment of ocean bluff retreat prepared by the Project geotechnical engineer which further finds that the Project site is well isolated from coastal bluff retreat and has no potential of encroachment into the site for a period well in excess of several hundred years. (b) The proposed Project will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed improvements can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to ensure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The applicant has also provided an assessment of ocean bluff retreat prepared by the Project geotechnical engineer which further finds that the Project site is well isolated from the coastal bluff retreat and has no potential of encroachment into the site for a period well in excess of several hundred years.

14.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
8 The average slope of the Project site is 38 percent and based on the topographic survey the slope is well distributed throughout the Project site. Therefore, there is no other buildable area on the site to avoid slopes in excess of 35 percent. The proposed Project is clustered within existing surrounding development. The Project is an infill project and the site is surrounded by development and altered slopes from existing surrounding development. Therefore, the proposed grading throughout the Project site would have a negligible impact on the already degraded appearance of the landform of the area. As discussed above, the Project would include a storm drain system that would limit any excess post development runoff from the site. Additionally, a Landscaping Plan was prepared for the Project. A condition of approval would require a final landscaping plan be prepared to ensure that vegetation is native or low maintenance, drought tolerant, and coastal compatible.

In addition, the LCLUP establishes a design review requirement for sites located in the appeal jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. In the City Council’s assessment, as conditioned, the proposed improvements at the site are on balance consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, as described in further detail below.

Site Planning:
a. Site Improvements. Locate site improvements such as building, parking areas, and walkways to take advantage of desirable site features. Buildings should be oriented to capitalize on views of hills and ocean.
b. Parking: The visual impact of parking areas should be minimized when appropriate to the site by locating parking areas to the rear of the side of the property, rather than along street frontages.
c. Grading: Where significant amounts of grading are required, contours should be graded to blend with those of adjacent properties. Contours should be rounded on both cut and fill slopes, horizontally and vertically.
(a) The proposed buildings and site improvements would be situated so that all stories of the single-family residence may capitalize on views of hills and ocean. (b) The proposed parking is designed so that both the garage and driveway are located at the front of the property to minimize further impacts to the steeply sloped site. (c) The Project proposes two buildings on the downslope lot consisting of multiple levels to take advantage of horizontal space and propose development which is consistent with neighboring properties.

14.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
9 d. Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality.

Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.
e. Consistency: There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations. (a) The neighborhood in which the Project is located is characterized by multi-story homes constructed above and below the road along the hillside. The architectural style of the homes in the vicinity of the Project is varied in a neighborhood that includes traditional, Mediterranean, and contemporary architectural styles.
(b) The proposed residence is consistent in size and scale to neighboring properties. The Project is proposed downslope of Olympian Way and the main building and garage ADU are proposed to be constructed into the hillside to further minimize the impacts visible from the road. As such, they maintain the existing character of the surrounding area. (c) From Olympian Way, only one story of the proposed buildings would be visible. Balconies along the rear elevation on the middle and top stories provide details to create a sense of a human scale.
(d/e) The proposed exterior materials for the buildings would be consistent between the buildings and all elevations of the building. The proposed materials, as described in the Project Description of the staff report are of high design quality.

Hillside Development:
a. Excavation: Large amounts of cut and/ or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. • Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it.
• Whenever feasible buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
• Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
• Avoid one level solutions which would result in excessive lot coverage and more disruption of the site. Multi-level structures which step down the slope can help to minimize cut and fill.
b. Visual Impact: Development on hillsides and ridges is often visible to neighbors and other residents in the vicinity, as well as those at a distance, such as motorists traveling on Hwy

1. Hillside development also has the potential to block or impair established views from existing development.
• Locate development below ridges in hilltop so that ridgelines are left open. Avoid linear arrangements of buildings.
• Building forms particularly roof forms, should complement the contours and slopes of the hillside to increase structure and site integration. • Buildings should be designed with low profiles in some cases, low pitched roofs and hip ends may be desirable.
• Massive roof overhangs and building cantilevers on downhill faces should be avoided where site conditions allow terracing into the hillside will help reduce the impact of the bulk of the structure.
• Multi-level designs which conform to the hillside are encouraged but careful planning is required to avoid excessive height. The horizontal potential of a site should be fully exploited before increasing building height.

14.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
10 • Landscaping should be used as necessary to help soften building appearance. • Where feasible locate new buildings to minimize view blockage from primary viewing areas of existing development.
c. Access Difficulty: Vehicular access and circulation in hillside development can often be unsafe or dangerous due to excessive slope and lack of adequate sight distance. • Driveways and access roads should follow the contours of the hillside rather than cut through them.
• Wherever possible, roads and driveways should be designed with less than the maximum slope allowed by city standards.
• Driveway lengths to accommodate parked vehicle are encouraged. (a) The proposed Project is located on a down-sloped lot. The proposed buildings and site improvements are proposed to be tiered down the property. The proposed swing type driveway would be aligned with existing contours of the land. The proposed retaining walls are necessary to support the access to the site, the buildings, as well as a reasonably sized useable open space for residents of the Project. Staff worked with the applicant to minimize retaining wall heights on site, including a reduction of and originally proposed 14’ retaining wall for the patio to a tiered retaining wall system with a 7’ and 4-6’ wall, which also provides a usable vegetative balcony off of the middle story. The Project is a multi-level structure which steps down the slope.
(b) The proposed Project is located below the ridgeline of Point San Pedro. Roof lines have low pitch roofs and are to be hipped. It maximizes the horizontal potential of the site by proposing the minimum required side setbacks under the R-1 zoning district. The Project does not propose any massive overhangs or cantilevers as discouraged on downhill slopes.

The Project does not exceed the applicable maximum height restrictions of the zoning district. Landscaping is proposed to soften the building and retaining wall appearance. The Project would not block any primary viewing areas of surrounding existing development. (c) The proposed swing type driveway would follow the contours of the hillside rather than cut through it. The proposed maximum driveway slope is 16 percent, which is below the 18 percent allowed by City standards. The proposed swing type driveway would accommodate parked vehicles in the driveway. Additionally, the Project would create an on-street parking bay.

For all of the reasons provided above, the proposed Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines.

As summarized above in the Project Description, the proposed Project would comply with applicable setback, lot coverage, height, and other requirements of the R-1 zoning district (PMC Section 9-4.402) and applicable provisions for reduced setbacks for the garage (PMC Section 9-

4.2704(b)). The applicant provided the required geotechnical survey for development on slopes greater than 15 percent per PMC sec. 9-4.4404, a grading and drainage plan per PMC Section 9-

4.4405. A condition of approval would require the Director’s approval of an administrative CDP for the ADU in accordance with PMC Section 9-4.455(c) and process detailed in PMC Section 9-

4.4306(m).

14.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
11 For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a City Council finding that the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
ii. Required Finding: Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

The subject site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby authorize removal of one heritage tree based on the following criteria as required by PMC section 4-12.05(c). This section of the PMC does not provide specific findings for approval of removal of heritage trees. Rather, it states that approval of heritage tree removal shall be based on the following criteria:
• The condition of the tree with respect to disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, and its ability to host a plant which is parasitic to another tree which is in danger of being infested by the parasite; • Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property;
• The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it; • The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole; • The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support; and • Good forestry practices.

The Applicant submitted an arborist report identifying five trees on site, only one of which is considered a Heritage Tree. The arborist report describes the condition of the one heritage tree proposed to be removed in order to construct the development. The staff report includes a diagram of the tree locations. Three trees are located on the adjacent parcel to the west and either do not meet the definition of a heritage tree or construction would not occur within the dripline of the tree.

The arborist report characterizes the one heritage tree on the site as a dead Monterey pine that is covered in ivy. The arborist states that the tree died due to bark beetle infestation, which is common for the species. Removal of the dead heritage tree would be consistent with criteria (i), (ii), and (iii) of PMC section 4-12.05(c). The site is located in a zoning district that permits single-family dwellings and has a General Plan land use designation that allows for the density of the proposed Project. Therefore, development of the Project would provide the appropriate economic use of the site. The topography of the land and effect of the requested Project on it requires grading and vegetation removal. The location of the heritage tree to be removed is generally located in the center front portion of the site, which is the most developable area necessitating removal of the tree to allow development.

The heritage tree proposed for removal is not known to provide any substantial shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, or scenic beauty and is not known to

14.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
12 directly bear upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole. The arborist also makes recommendations in line with good forestry practices to protect the trees on the adjacent site to the west during construction. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to authorize removal of the one heritage tree.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a 3,373-sf, single-family dwelling and a 603-sf detached garage located on a 7,289-sf lot at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030), subject to conditions of approval included in Exhibit A to this Resolution. Approval of the proposed ADU shall be subject to future action by the Planning Director to consider an administrative CDP pursuant to PMC section 9-4.4306(m). * * * * *

14.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
13 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14
th day of March 2022.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

14.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2021-018 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-430- 21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, to construct a 3,373-sf single-family residence with a detached garage on a 7,289-sf lot at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030).

City Council Meeting of March 14, 2022
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “New Single Family Home W/ ADU TBD Olympian Way, Pacifica, CA” received by the City of Pacifica on January 10, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. That the approval or approvals is/are valid for a period of one year from the date of final determination. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval(s) shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Planning Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Planning Director may administratively grant a single, one-year extension provided, if in the Planning Director's sole discretion, the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one-year extension. In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City's determination on the development permits, the Planning Director may toll expiration of the development permits during the pendency of such litigation.

3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit that includes development of the proposed ADU attached to the proposed garage, the Planning Director shall first approve an administrative CDP for the ADU in accordance with PMC section 9-4.4306(m). If the Applicant is unable to obtain final approval of an administrative CDP to authorize the proposed ADU, the Applicant shall revise the Project plans to remove the proposed ADU and reduce the detached garage height to 12 feet prior to issuance of a building permit.

4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall have a qualified professional engineer review, and if necessary, revise the hydrology calculations prepared in the report titled “Preliminary Storm Drainage Report for TBD Olympian Way Pacifica” prepared by Round House Industries, Inc. and dated September 15, 2021 and the drainage design shown on Sheet C2.1 Grading and Drainage Plan (dated 9-21-21) of the Project plans titled “New Single Family Home W/ ADU TBD Olympian Way, Pacifica, CA” received by the City of Pacifica on January 10, 2022 to the Planning Director’s satisfaction. The drainage detention system design in terms of size and proposed discharge points for surface water shall match the system design shown in Attachment H of the March 14, 2022 City Council staff report to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a formal address assignment request and associated fees, as detailed in the applicable Master Fee Schedule, to the Planning Department for the proposed single-family residence and ADU (if approved).

14.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
A-2

6. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.

7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, and as agreed to by the Applicant, the Applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include installation of seven 24-inch box trees to replace trees removed by the Project, in a species and placement to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size, and location of plant materials, as well as the irrigation system. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be native or low maintenance, coastal compatible, and drought tolerant.

All landscaping shall be installed consistent with the final landscape plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced when necessary, as determined by the Planning Director.

9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a detailed on-site exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said plan shall indicate fixture design, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residences.

Buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to residences shall be required.

Building lighting shall be architecturally integrated with the building style, materials and colors and shall be designed to minimize glare. The plan shall show fixture locations, where applicable, on all building elevations.

10. All transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berms, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

11. Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

12. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.

13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

14. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter "City") from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter "Proceeding") brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City's actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan

14.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
A-3
amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant's Project ("Challenge"). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant's sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney's fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

Building Department

15. The Project shall comply with applicable California Building Standard Codes at the time of building permit application.

16. All plan sheets shall be signed and stamped by a licensed design professional per Business and Professions Code section 5537.

17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall incorporate all recommendations detailed in the report titled “Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Residence at Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way Pacifica, California” prepared by GeoForensics, Inc. and dated January 2021 to the Building Official’s satisfaction.

Wastewater Division, Public Works Department

18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, application shall provide location and size of sewer lateral, appurtenances and city standards and specification sheets on all sets of plans.

Engineering Division, Public Works Department

19. Prior to issuance of a building permit or encroachment permit, and as agreed to by the Applicant, the Applicant shall revise the Project plans to confine the driveway and associated improvements within the public right-of-way such as retaining walls to within the frontage of the Project site.

20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan that addresses construction phase vehicle operation and parking as well as material staging, and that shall ensure continued vehicular and pedestrian access through and along Olympian Way, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

21. Construction shall be in conformance with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) shall be implemented, and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans.

22. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Olympian Way. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced. A properly signed no-parking zone may be established

14.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
A-4
during normal working hours only.

23. Existing street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that are damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this Project.

24. All recorded survey points, monuments, railroad spikes, pins, cross cuts on top of sidewalks and tags on top of culvert headwalls or end walls whether within private property or public right-of-way shall be protected and preserved. If survey point/s are altered, removed or destroyed, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the services of a licensed surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer to restore or replace the survey points and record the required map prior to occupancy of the building.

25. Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:
a. an accurate survey plan, showing:
i. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;
ii. property lines labeled with bearings and distances; iii. edge of public right-of-way;
iv. any easements on the subject property
b. a site plan, showing:
i. the whole width of right-of-way of Olympian Way, including existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, new pavement, driveway approach, sidewalk, curb & gutter, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any groundmounted equipment, street monuments, any street markings and signage; ii. adjacent driveways within 25’ of the property lines iii. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10’ of the property lines.
c. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.
d. Provide a design level geotechnical report, signed and stamped by a registered professional, for all cuts, fills, and earth retaining structures or systems within the City right-of-way
e. Provide structural plans and calculations, signed and stamped by a registered professional, for all retaining structures or systems within the City right-of-way. f. Retaining structures or systems within the City right-of-way shall be peer reviewed by an engineering consultant for the City, and it must be found acceptable to the City, as is or with recommendations. The Applicant shall pay City the cost of the peer review, including the costs of staff time and any services determined to be necessary by the City Engineer.

14.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
A-5
g. If any retaining wall is proposed in the right-of-way that would result in a drop of 21” or more, provide a fence or guardrail for pedestrian safety. Guardrails shall be approved and inspected by the City’s Building Official. h. Provide a 6” x 6” curb or berm at the edge of the pavement to act as a wheel stop and to prevent sheet drainage off the side of the pavement. i. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

26. An Encroachment Permit must be obtained for all work within public right-of-way. All proposed improvements within public right-of-way shall be constructed per City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

27. No private structures, including but not limited to fences, mailboxes, or stairs shall encroach into the public right-of-way without written approval of the City Engineer.

28. All utilities shall be installed underground from the nearest box or joint pole.

29. All proposed sanitary sewer system and storm drain system elements, including detention facilities, shall be privately maintained up to their connections to the existing mains.

30. Post-construction overflows need to be contained within the private property through the use of stormwater retention or detention control measures. Provide hydrology calculations based on a 100-year storm for the proposed storm drainage system. Calculations must be stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer.

31. The driveway approach must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope for a width of at least 48 inches. The transition from 2% slope to the driveway slope shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid causing conventional automobiles to make contact with the pavement at the grade breaks. Driveway within City right-of-way shall not exceed 18%, and any portion exceeding 15% grade shall be grooved concrete to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.

32. Any ground disturbed by construction activities shall be permanently stabilized to prevent future erosion.

33. All construction within the public right-of-way, with the exception of street pavement, shall be covered by a Maintenance Agreement, which will be recorded with the County Recorder’s Office and will run with the land and be binding on any future owners of the property. The Maintenance Agreement shall burden the Applicant to maintain all covered improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

34. Per the adopted City of Pacifica Complete Street Policy, development shall include facilities for pedestrians. Applicant shall record with the County Recorder’s Office a Deferred Improvements Agreement, which will run with the land and be binding on any future owners of the property, to provide sidewalk facilities at a future date upon demand by the City.

14.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) File No. 2021-018
Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030)
A-6
North County Fire Authority

35. Fire sprinkler system is required. Submit plans to North County Fire Authority under separate fire permit.

36. Provide fire flow information per CFC, Appendix B.

37. Illuminated address identification is required.
***END***

14.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

14.b
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

14.b
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution 2022-003 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: January 18, 2022 FILE: CDP-430-21
Heritage Tree Removal Authorization
ITEM: 3
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published in Pacifica Tribune on January 5, 2022, mailed to 202 surrounding property owners and occupants, and posted in three locations in the vicinity of the project site.

APPLICANT &
OWNER:

Michael O’Connell
San Pedro Valley, LLC
899 San Pedro Terrace
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030), approximately 1,450 feet northwest of the intersection of Olympian Way and Grand Avenue – Pedro Point / Shelter Cove PROJECT DESCRIPTION: File No. 2021-018 – Construction of a new single-family residence, garage, and accessory dwelling unit on an undeveloped parcel.

SITE DESIGNATIONS: General Plan: Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) / C-Z (Coastal Zone Combining) RECOMMENDED CEQA STATUS: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, Section 15303.

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVALS: None. Subject to appeal to the City Council and California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve with conditions.

PREPARED BY: Jacob Garcia, Contract Planner
3 Packet Pg. 211

14.c
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

PROJECT SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS
ZONING STANDARDS CONFORMANCE:

Standards Required Existing Proposed
Lot Size (sf) 5,000 sf 7,289 sf No change
Lot Coverage 40% max N/A2 29%
Height:
-Single-Family Residence 35’-0” max N/A2 34’-6.5”
-ADU/ Garage 16’-0” max1 N/A2 16’-0”
Landscaping 20% min N/A2 47.63%
Setbacks:
-Front (Single-Family Residence) 15’-0” min N/A2 48’-5” -Front (ADU) 15’-0” min1 N/A2 16’-4.25”
-Front (Garage) 10’-0” min3 N/A2 10’-5.5”
-Side (Single-Family
Residence/Garage)
5’-0” min N/A2 5’-0” (west)
5’-0” (east)
-Side (ADU) 4’-0” min1 N/A2 5’-0” (west)
45’-6” (east)
-Rear (Single-Family Residence) 20’-0” min N/A2 20’-0”
Parking (Single-Family Residence) Two garage spaces N/A2 Two garage spaces Notes:
1 Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Sec. 9-4.453(d)
2 The existing lot is undeveloped, therefore, there are no existing improvements to analyze. 3 PMC Sec. 9-4.2704(b) allows for a garage to be built with a 10-foot setback where the slope of the front half of a residential lot is greater than 25 percent), or where the elevation of the lot at the front street line is six feet above or below the established street elevation.

Project Description
The project site is a 7,289-square foot (sf) undeveloped lot with a steep downhill average slope of 38 percent. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,373-sf, single-family dwelling, a 434-sf accessory dwelling unit (ADU) attached to a 603-sf detached garage and a 45-sf shed (Attachment B). The proposed building for the single-family dwelling would consist of three stories – a 1,429-sf first floor (top story), a 1,433-sf second floor (middle story), and a 510-sf third floor (bottom story). The single-family dwelling would contain six bedrooms and four bathrooms. The main dwelling would have two north (ocean) facing balconies, including a 93-sf balcony on the middle story and a 140-sf balcony on the top story. The detached accessory building consists of two stories – a 603-sf, two-car garage on the upper story and a 434-sf, studio ADU on the lower story.

The lot is proposed to be graded with multiple levels. Access to a swing-type driveway and the garage is proposed at the topmost level and would be supported by a 12’-7” retaining wall near the front portion of the property. In accordance with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Sec. 9-4.2704(b), which allows for a reduced front setback for a garage based on the slope of the front portion of the property, the garage 3 Packet Pg. 212

14.c
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 3 ends

would have 10’-5.5” front setback. Below the garage and driveway level, an approximately 1,060-sf patio area is proposed in front and to the east of the main dwelling and is supported with a 7’-0” (maximum) retaining wall. Additionally, a 4’-6” retaining wall (maximum) to the east of the main dwelling would support an approximately 220-sf landscaped balcony. The applicant team worked with City staff to revise these retaining walls to minimize retaining wall height and better contour with the site’s topography and minimize the potential impacts and grading associated with the patio area. At the rear of the property two more retaining walls would be proposed with maximum heights of 3’-0” and 6’-2”.

The retaining walls are proposed to be contoured with the hillside and would be visually screened downslope with vegetation. Unless otherwise noted, retaining wall heights indicated in this staff report are as viewed from the maximum exposed face of the walls, and not based on their zoning height measurement which is taken from the higher side of a retaining wall pursuant to PMC Section 9-

4.2502(b).

The main material of the dwelling and the detached garage/ADU is proposed to be primarily a natural weathered western red cedar shingle siding, with a cedar wood trim painted a “White Dove” color, the garage doors will be painted to match trim. The top floor of the main residence is proposed to have board and batten siding to be painted “White Dove”. The board and batten siding is proposed along the front, right elevation and some of the left elevations. Windows are proposed to be vinyl windows in the color “White”. Gutters and downspouts are proposed to be copper. The proposed roof is to consist of timber line natural shadow composition asphalt shingle roofing in a “Charcoal” color. Railings throughout the site are proposed to be aluminum framed, with stainless steel cables spaced no more than 4-inches apart with a wood top cap.

The project proposes a storm drain gravity system that would be designed to maintain the predevelopment runoff rates for a 100-year storm. Drainage spouts and piping would collect and direct the excess storm water runoff from around the site to a properly sized perforated detention pipe in the rear of the property.

There are five trees on the project site, all of which are proposed to be removed and only one is considered a heritage tree. Additionally, there are three trees on the adjacent property to the west (131 Olympian Way), only one of which is considered a heritage tree and no construction would occur within the dripline of the heritage tree on the adjacent property. An arborist report was prepared for project (Attachment C) and is further discussed under Section 3 ‘Required Findings’ of this staff report.

The project would also include some improvements in the public right-of-way, including the construction of a maximum 7’-0” high retaining wall to support a parking bay that could accommodate one on-street parking space.

1. General Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject site’s General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential (LDR) (Attachment D).

The LDR land use designation permits residential development at an average density of three to nine units per acre (an average lot area of 4,840-14,520 sf per unit). A single-family residence on a 7,289-sf lot is consistent with the use type and densities allowed within the LDR land use designation. 3 Packet Pg. 213

14.c
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 4 ends

The subject site’s location is within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and C-Z (Coastal Zone Combining) zoning districts. The R-1 zone allows development of single-family dwellings including accessory dwelling units as a permitted use. The C-Z zone allows development subject to issuance of a coastal development permit (CDP).

Land uses surrounding the project site consist entirely of single-family residences in the R-1/C-Z districts.

2. Municipal Code
The applicant’s proposal requires two approvals from the Planning Commission under the PMC. First, the project requires Planning Commission approval of a CDP prior to issuance of a building permit because (i) the project constitutes “development,” as defined in PMC section 9-4.4302(z)(7), because it involves the “construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public or municipal utility”; and, (ii) the project does not qualify as a category of excluded development since it is located within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction [see PMC Section 9-4.4303 (i)(2)]. Second, a heritage tree removal authorization is required pursuant to PMC section 4-12.07(a) because the project proposes removal of one heritage tree.

Additionally, per PMC section 9-4.455(c), an application for an ADU in the C-Z zoning district requires consideration of an administrative CDP by the Planning Director without a public hearing for the ADU portion of the project in accordance with the processes detailed in PMC section 9-4.4306(m). Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not consider the use of the ADU as part of the public hearing process for the subject CDP.

3. Required Findings
A. In order to approve the subject CDP, the Planning Commission must make the two findings required by PMC Section 9-4.4304(k). The following discussion supports the Commission’s findings in this regard:
i. Required Finding: The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) that contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. The proposed project is consistent with several of these policies, as discussed below. x Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

The proposed project does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. The development will be undertaken on a lot well away from the nearest coastal access point.

Between the sea and the subject site there is substantial urban development and several 3 Packet Pg. 214

14.c
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 5 ends

streets. Therefore, the project would have no impact or otherwise interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea.
x Coastal Act Policy No. 23: New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... [the remainder of this policy pertains to land divisions and visitorserving facilities, neither of which are part of the subject project.] The new development proposed with this project is located within an existing developed area.

The Pedro Point/ Shelter Cove neighborhood is a substantially developed suburban neighborhood with subdivided lots, most of which have already been developed with singlefamily homes, including the lots on either side of the project site. Therefore, development would not occur outside of existing developed areas.
x Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall (a) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. [the remainder of this policy pertains to air pollution, energy consumption, protection of special communities, none of which would conflict with the Project.] (a) The project site is not located in area of high flood or fire hazards. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (Attachment E) that finds that the proposed improvements can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to minimize risk to life and property due to geologic hazards.

The applicant has also provided an assessment of ocean bluff retreat prepared by the project geotechnical engineer (Attachment F) which further finds that the project site is well isolated from coastal bluff retreat and has no potential of encroachment into the site for a period well in excess of several hundred years.
(b) The proposed project will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed improvements can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to ensure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The applicant has also provided an assessment of ocean bluff retreat prepared by the project geotechnical engineer (Attachment E) which further finds that the project site is well isolated from the coastal bluff retreat and has no potential of encroachment into the site for a period well in excess of several hundred years.
3 Packet Pg. 215

14.c
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 6 ends

Protection of Landforms “Conclusions for the protection of [Point San Pedro] prominent topographic features include:
o Development shall be prohibited on prominent ridgelines, slopes in excess of 35 percent and highly visible tops of prominent landforms, unless there is no other buildable area on the parcel. o If permitted, development shall be clustered and contoured into the existing natural slope and of a design, density and scale which is subordinate to the landform and minimize grading for access..
o Grading shall be regulated to protect the appearance of the landform and to limit potential runoff.
o Native vegetation shall be protected. In areas disturbed by development, revegetation shall occur promptly with native or low maintenance, natural vegetation to reduce erosion potential; landscaping plans should be required.” (LCLUP Page C103) The average slope of the project site is 38 percent and based on the topographic survey the slope is well distributed throughout the project site. Therefore, there is no other buildable area on the site to avoid slopes in excess of 35 percent. The proposed project is clustered within existing surrounding development. The project is an infill project and the site is surrounded by development and altered slopes from existing surrounding development. Therefore, the proposed grading throughout the project site would have a negligible impact on the already degraded appearance of the landform of the area. As discussed above, the project would include a storm drain system that would limit any excess post development runoff from the site.

Additionally, as shown on Sheet A1.5 of Attachment B, a Landscaping Plan was prepared for the project. A condition of approval would require a final landscaping plan be prepared to ensure that vegetation is native or low maintenance, drought tolerant, and coastal compatible.

In addition, the LCLUP establishes a design review requirement for sites located in the appeal jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. In staff’s assessment, as conditioned, the proposed improvements at the site are on balance consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, as described in further detail below.

14.c
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 7 ends

(c) The project proposes two buildings on the downslope lot consisting of multiple levels to take advantage of horizontal space and propose development which is consistent with neighboring properties.

Building Design:
a. Design: The style and design of the new buildings should be in character with that of the surrounding neighborhood.
b. Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged.
c. Details: Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale. While insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the scale of larger buildings.
d. Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important. e. Consistency: There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations. (a) The neighborhood in which the project is located is characterized by multi-story homes constructed above and below the road along the hillside. The architectural style of the homes in the vicinity of the project is varied in a neighborhood that includes traditional, Mediterranean, and contemporary architectural styles.
(b) The proposed residence is consistent in size and scale to neighboring properties. The project is proposed downslope of Olympian Way and the main building and garage ADU are proposed to be constructed into the hillside to further minimize the impacts visible from the road. As such, they maintain the existing character of the surrounding area. (c) From Olympian Way, only one story of the proposed buildings would be visible. Balconies along the rear elevation on the middle and top stories provide details to create a sense of a human scale. (d/e) The proposed exterior materials for the buildings would be consistent between the buildings and all elevations of the building. The proposed materials, as described in the Project Description of this staff report are of high design quality.

Hillside Development:
a. Excavation: Large amounts of cut and/ or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. x Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it.
x Whenever feasible buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
x Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
x Avoid one level solutions which would result in excessive lot coverage and more disruption of the site. Multi-level structures which step down the slope can help to minimize cut and fill.
3 Packet Pg. 217

14.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 8 ends

b. Visual Impact: Development on hillsides and ridges is often visible to neighbors and other residents in the vicinity, as well as those at a distance, such as motorists traveling on Hwy 1.

Hillside development also has the potential to block or impair established views from existing development.
x Locate development below ridges in hilltop so that ridgelines are left open. Avoid linear arrangements of buildings.
x Building forms particularly roof forms, should complement the contours and slopes of the hillside to increase structure and site integration.
x Buildings should be designed with low profiles in some cases, low pitched roofs and hip ends may be desirable.
x Massive roof overhangs and building cantilevers on downhill faces should be avoided where site conditions allow terracing into the hillside will help reduce the impact of the bulk of the structure.
x Multi-level designs which conform to the hillside are encouraged but careful planning is required to avoid excessive height. The horizontal potential of a site should be fully exploited before increasing building height.
x Landscaping should be used as necessary to help soften building appearance. x Where feasible locate new buildings to minimize view blockage from primary viewing areas of existing development.
c. Access Difficulty: Vehicular access and circulation in hillside development can often be unsafe or dangerous due to excessive slope and lack of adequate sight distance. x Driveways and access roads should follow the contours of the hillside rather than cut through them.
x Wherever possible, roads and driveways should be designed with less than the maximum slope allowed by city standards.
x Driveway lengths to accommodate parked vehicle are encouraged. (a) The proposed project is located on a down-sloped lot. The proposed buildings and site improvements are proposed to be tiered down the property. The proposed swing type driveway would be aligned with existing contours of the land. The proposed retaining walls are necessary to support the access to the site, the buildings, as well as a reasonably sized useable open space for residents of the project. Staff worked with the applicant to minimize retaining wall heights on site, including a reduction of and originally proposed 14’ retaining wall for the patio to a tiered retaining wall system with a 7’ and 4-6’ wall, which also provides a usable vegetative balcony off of the middle story. The project is a multi-level structure which steps down the slope.
(b) The proposed project is located below the ridgeline of Point San Pedro. Roof lines have low pitch roofs and are to be hipped. It maximizes the horizontal potential of the site by proposing the minimum required side setbacks under the R-1 zoning district. The project does not propose any massive overhangs or cantilevers as discouraged on downhill slopes. The project does not exceed the applicable maximum height restrictions of the zoning district. Landscaping is proposed to soften the building and retaining wall appearance. The project would not block any primary viewing areas of surrounding existing development. 3 Packet Pg. 218

14.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 9 ends

(c) The proposed swing type driveway would follow the contours of the hillside rather than cut through it. The proposed maximum driveway slope is 16 percent, which is below the 18 percent allowed by City standards. The proposed swing type driveway would accommodate parked vehicles in the driveway. Additionally, the project would create an on-street parking bay.

For all of the reasons provided above, the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines.

The City’s certified Local Coastal Program also includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As summarized above in the Project Description, the proposed project would comply with applicable setback, lot coverage, height, and other requirements of the R-1 zoning district (PMC Section 9-4.402) and applicable provisions for reduced setbacks for the garage (PMC Section 9-4.2704(b)). The applicant provided the required geotechnical survey for development on slopes greater than 15 percent per PMC sec. 9-4.4404, a grading and drainage plan per PMC Section 9-4.4405. A condition of approval would require the Director’s approval of an administrative CDP for the ADU in accordance with PMC Section 9-4.455(c) and process detailed in PMC Section 9-4.4306(m).

For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a Planning Commission finding that the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
ii. Required Finding: Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The subject site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

B. The Planning Commission may authorize heritage tree removal based on the following criteria as required by PMC section 4-12.05(c). This section of the PMC does not provide specific findings for approval of removal of heritage trees. Rather, it states that approval of heritage tree removal shall be based on the following criteria:
i. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, and its ability to host a plant which is parasitic to another tree which is in danger of being infested by the parasite;
ii. Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property;
iii. The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it; iv. The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole;
v. The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support; and 3 Packet Pg. 219

14.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 10 ends

vi. Good forestry practices.

Discussion: The Applicant submitted an arborist report (Attachment C) identifying five trees on site, only one of which is considered a Heritage Tree. The arborist report describes the condition of the one heritage tree proposed to be removed in order to construct the development.

Attachment C includes a diagram of the tree locations. Three trees are located on the adjacent parcel to the west and either do not meet the definition of a heritage tree or construction would not occur within the dripline of the tree.

The arborist report characterizes the one heritage tree on the site as a dead Monterey pine that that is covered in ivy. The arborist states that the tree died due to bark beetle infestation, which is common for the species. Removal of the dead heritage tree would be consistent with criteria (i), (ii), and (iii) of PMC section 4-12.05(c). The site is located in a zoning district that permits single-family dwellings and has a General Plan land use designation that allows for the density of the proposed project. Therefore, development of the project would provide the appropriate economic use of the site.

The topography of the land and effect of the requested project on it requires grading and vegetation removal. The location of the heritage tree to be removed is generally located in the center front portion of the site, which is the most developable area necessitating removal of the tree to allow development.

The heritage tree proposed for removal is not known to provide any substantial shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, or scenic beauty and is not known to directly bear upon the health, safety, historic value, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole. The arborist also makes recommendations in line with good forestry practices to protect the trees on the adjacent site to the west during construction. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to authorize removal of the one heritage tree.

4. CEQA Recommendation
Staff analysis of the proposed project supports a Planning Commission finding that it qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption provided in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Section 15303 states in part:

14.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 11 ends

* * * * *
The subject proposal to construct a new single-family residence fits within the scope of a class 3 categorical exemption. Specifically, the project involves construction of one single-family residence and an ADU in a zone which permits residential uses. For the foregoing reasons, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply:
x Sec. 15300.2(a): There is no evidence in the record that the project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. x 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. x Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
x 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 3 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.

5. Staff Analysis
The proposed project would comply with applicable Local Coastal Program and zoning provisions, would have no negative affect on coastal resources, and would not create any identified negative neighborhood impacts. As designed, the proposed project would integrate with the architecture and materials of the existing neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the project

COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move that the Planning Commission FINDS the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A; and, incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 221

14.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022

Page 12 ends

Attachment A - Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment B - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment C - Arborist Report (PDF)
Attachment D - Land Use and Zoning Exhibit (PDF)
Attachment E - Geotechnical Report (PDF)
Attachment F - Ocean Bluff Assessment (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 222

14.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 19 of 31 ends

3. CDP-430-21 File No. 2021-018 – Coastal Development Permit Heritage Tree CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization Removal for construction of a new single-family residence, garage and Authorization accessory dwelling unit on an undeveloped lot at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) located approximately
1,450 feet northwest of the intersection of Olympian Way and Grand Avenue.

Recommended CEQA Action: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Contract Planner Garcia presented the staff report.

Commissioner Hauser understood that there is no variance requested and it is a residential lot, she wanted to understand what the job of the Planning Commission was and what they are reviewing.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock encouraged the Commission, when acting on permit, to focus on the findings for approval and take all the evidence from the staff report, written report, presentation and any testimony offered by staff, public and applicant at this hearing. They can weigh all that evidence to determine whether or not the Commission can make the findings. He stated that, on this particular project, the Planning Commission’s action is limited to 1) entitlement in the coastal development permit and focused on determining whether the proposed development as defined in the municipal code complies with the city’s adopted certified local coastal program. He stated that there are policies based in the Coastal Act related to preservation and protection of coastal resources, visual resources, etc., coastal hazards, etc., including design review that they operationalized through applying the city’s adopted design guidelines. He stated that the findings are set forth in the staff report and the Commission’s job is to weigh all the evidence and determine whether they can make the findings for the project as proposed and conditioned by staff.

Commissioner Domurat stated that it appears that the heritage tree in question had an arborist report that said it was a dead tree but, if it is a dead tree, it is a dead stick and he asked why they were looking at it as approving removal. He thought, once you get an arborist report saying that the tree is not a viable living species, then it should not even requested to be reviewed by the commissioners, and he asked if he was misreading something.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that Contract Planner Garcia can speak to what the arborist report says for this tree, and he will look at the exceptions from the heritage tree permit to determine whether a dead tree is exempt, adding that he thought it is not.

Contract Planner Garcia stated that the heritage tree proposed for removal has been identified by the arborist to be dead and overgrown with ivy and recommended the

14.d
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 20 of 31 ends

removal of the tree to allow for the development. He stated that the location of the tree is where the proposed driveway retaining wall and patio improvements are to be located.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock explained that the city’s heritage tree preservation ordinance is codified in Title 4, Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code which sets forth criteria for evaluating a heritage tree permit and it doesn’t specifically exempt a dead heritage tree from the requirement for a permit, but it allows the Commission to consider the condition of the tree with respect to disease, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures. He stated that several of those have some implication for whether the tree is dead as it relates to the findings.

Michael O’Connell, applicant, stated that they reviewed all the conditions from Planning, Building, Fire and Public Works and they didn’t take any exceptions to those. He wanted to point out on their thinking that they had an unusually configured site as wide in the front and steps in and they had an opportunity to do something different than what they see on the other houses on the street where they have to be attached to the garage to make it work. They were seeing if they can create a usable outdoor yard which is in the front and is on the same plane as the main living level. The garage is on the ground floor, and the back yard is essentially the third floor. On the downhill side, they have the opposite problem as a lot of houses don’t have a front yard and they require decks which don’t do very well in this environment which is why they liked the concrete wall to provide that space as with this environment, it will have to be replaced in 10-15 years. They were able to create the space on the main floor as most of the houses on the downhill side don’t have good functional feasible yard. They were taking advantage of that and put it in the extra space they have in the front of the house and it also provides a larger setback from the neighbor.

Chair Nibbelin opened the Public Hearing.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock introduced the speakers.

Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he is a member of Tree City Pacifica. He stated that it was a beautiful project and they were just concerned about the erosion from the tree removal.

They were hoping that no trees will be cut down until a building permit has been issued and hoping that any heritage tree removal will have a 3:1 replacement ratio and 1:1 for any other tree removal or in lieu fees collected so the trees can be planted on another site.

Leo Leon, Pacifica, stated that he had some suggestions and concerns. He referred to the design review LCLUP hillside development, stating that large amounts of cut and fill are unattractive on hillsides and can have a detrimental effect on the immediate and surrounding environment. He stated that Olympian Way has no sidewalks and is very narrow. He stated concern about the number, size and number of trips of the trucks because of amount of soil being removed and problem of trucks becoming stuck on the street and asked that a condition address these concerns. He also stated there are numerous necessary retaining walls that cross the entire project on at least three levels

14.d
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 21 of 31 ends

and a wrap around on the sides as required by other conditions. He referred to the geologic map review addressing landslides, etc., and have a peer review on these issues.

Gail Benton-Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated she was a member of Tree City Pacifica. She referred to the process revising the heritage tree ordinance and she hoped it will make clear the definitions of heritage trees and logging operations and all the steps that will make the Commissioners’ jobs easier as they won’t have to decide on a case by case basis on replacement requirements, etc. She mentioned that a Councilmember suggested a moratorium be put in place until the revised ordinance is adopted, and their organization supports that idea. She mentioned her concerns on this project, and her suggestions if project is approved.

Ila Homsher, Pacifica, stated that she lives on Olympian Way and mentioned some of her concerns regarding the project, such as encroachment of public right-of-way, etc,, and her suggestions for modifications of the site plan to respect the right-of-way, as well as concerns about the height of the project, pipes, retaining walls, etc.

Kathy Gust, Pacifica, stated that she lives on Essex Way, downhill from the project, and felt she was at the most risk for any adverse effect and concerned about how the project will adversely affect her home, stating that she submitted her concerns, adding that the main concern was the drainage with so little undeveloped property on the site. She also had concerns on why they pulled the house so far down the lot, as well as the retaining wall.

Mr. O’Connell addressed some of the comments. He raised the issue of the retaining wall encroaching along Ms. Gust’s frontage and they will adjust that. He stated that the drainage is currently designed in accordance with the city’s standards and the detention pipe is sized to detain the difference between the existing runoff from the site and the additional runoff from constructing the house and driveway. He stated that there was one bubble up box and they can easily add additional bubble up boxes, etc. to provide equalization of the flow or split the drainage areas into two and have an additional detention pipe near the top of the site that would receive runoff from the garage and driveway and the left half of the house. He stated that it ultimately has to go down the hill and dissipate. He stated that the real solution would require cooperation from the neighbors and they would be happy to utilize some of the existing drainage and there is a ditch that receives runoff from a pipe that collects runoff from an inlet. He thought it would be easy to install a new pipe behind Ms. Homsher’s house to receive part of the flow from their site and connect it into a pipe to bypass the drainage patterns on the site.

Chair Nibbelin closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Domurat referred to the drainage and landscaping, and asked if there was any consideration given to trapping some of the water for future use during dry conditions and they can use it for landscaping.

14.d
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 22 of 31 ends

Mr. O’Connell stated that it was a great idea but the problem is that they get all the water when they don’t need it and you would have to store that water all winter long to use it when needed in the dry season.

Commissioner Hauser stated that the Council has used the 3:1 heritage tree mitigation ratio as well as the 1:1 non-heritage tree mitigation ratio in the past for projects that have some more standards and that looks like 12 trees will be replaced and she would like the applicant to install seven 24-inch box trees and she asked if they would be willing to do.

Mr. O’Connell stated that he was trying to clarify with Mr. Brinkman on how many trees were already proposed.

Mr. Brinkman stated that there is one heritage tree and four non-heritage trees are proposed to be removed. He thought it would result in replanting of 3 trees for the heritage tree removal and 4 trees for the non-heritage tree removal. He stated that they currently only have one tree shown to replace the heritage tree, but they can look into that.

Commissioner Hauser concluded that she was hearing that 7 would be acceptable. She didn’t understand that they were on the neighbor’s property, and they would be willing to use the 24-inch tree size.

Mr. O’Connell responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Ferguson liked the idea of tying drainage to the existing public facilities on Essex, and he wasn’t sure how they can make that condition of approval because it would probably involve several other parties. He appreciated their willingness to go that route which is probably the best way for all parties involved, and he asked if there was a mechanism that the city has for making that a condition if it requires a third-party involvement.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought, in concept, it seems like a superior drainage solution, but his concerns are twofold. One is legal in that they haven’t noticed the project to include that scope of work which extends outside of the project area and involves property owned by others who are not party to the current application. Then, from a practical standpoint, he didn’t know if they would be able to assure that it would be accomplished as indicated, given the number of parties involved, and he would be hesitant to recommend that the Commission go down that path at this point in time. He stated that nothing would prevent the applicant from returning with an application to include that development when the conditions were appropriate, and the Commission may encourage him to pursue that type of modification to the project. He didn’t know if the Commission would be able to approve it at this meeting, given the public notice provided for this project.

14.d
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 23 of 31 ends

Chair Nibbelin stated that he was in the same place as Commissioner Ferguson and he would at least want to articulate the Commission encouraging that direction but he recognized that it may not be something they can impose with a condition. If that can be feasibly done, it would be a good path forward.

Mr. Messinger concurred with Dep. Planning Director Murdock and would add that it would also require city analysis of the flows and whether the facility they are suggesting tying into can handle the flows and how many properties would be connecting to it. He thought it was premature at this point.

Chair Nibbelin asked if the Commissioners had any deliberations or wanted to add anything.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock wanted to add some perspective on a couple of points raised during Commission deliberations. Regarding the storm water design, they have endeavored through the conditions of approval to make sure that the project does incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer and in one condition of approval, the applicant would be required to incorporate all the recommendations, which would include any drainage recommendations, potentially additional sources of outfall for the stormwater drainage and a separate condition requires finalizing the drainage plan for the project and they think there is currently measures in place to ensure that the project is safely designed in terms of stormwater drainage. Regarding tree replacement, he continues to have some discomfort with requiring the ad hoc replacement of trees at a particular ratio, especially for trees that are not heritage trees. He stated that the city’s current heritage tree ordinance does provide the Commission discretion to require replacement planting for removal of a heritage tree but does not provide any authorization or requirement for non-heritage trees and they would need to discuss that non-heritage tree replacement requirement further. Regarding heritage trees, he is having a hard time squaring some of the earlier conversation on the TBD Talbot project about stability of steep hillsides and tree plantings with the Commission’s desire for so many large trees to be potentially installed on the site as it is not a large site and, ignoring the geotechnical considerations, there are limits due to good forestry practices with the number and type of trees that a site can healthfully sustain. He asked that any desire for replacement plantings for the heritage tree to include a clause that up to a particular number or ratio with a recommendation of good forestry practices from a licensed landscape architect or qualified arborist or something along those lines so they are not creating an unsuitable condition for the helpful development of the trees should the Commission go that route.

Commissioner Hauser appreciated the insight and thoughtful analysis, and stated that the difference between the continued item they discussed earlier which was an untouched slope and a project proposing a lot of retaining walls and creating spaces where there are appropriate places for those trees, and she didn’t think a home with six bedrooms having seven 25-inch box trees are a lot to ask as it is a lot of house. She appreciated the applicant volunteering to plant those trees and would be amenable to him.

14.d
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 24 of 31 ends

Vice Chair Berman referred to a couple of points for which they received public comment on and to clarify with staff to confirm the profit of reviewing more detailed designs in the plan, given that they are at the planning stage of the project. She acknowledged concerns with qualified structural engineering review of the retaining walls about it being safe to assume that the thorough review will occur during the building permit phase.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that there was some work that could be done in the future on the language on that particular condition and they included addressing the city engineer’s concerns about ensuring that structures in the right-of-way are safely constructed and that may reflect a misunderstanding in the past that projects in the rightof-way don’t require building permits which is untrue as they do require building permits even though they are in the public right-of-way. Not only will they be subject to review for impacts to the right-of-way and traffic safety issues, etc., that are in the domain of the city engineer, but also subject to what was intended as the peer review and is an additional level of review during the building permit review phase by the city’s qualified civil and structural engineers that they have on their consultant staff and would review them on compliance with the California building code. He thought an appropriate level of review is already included with the requirement for a building permit for both retaining walls in the public right-of-way and on private property and are both subject to the same structural design review.

Vice Chair Berman stated that there were questions about the truck trips for the hall route that will be needed for the grading at the site and she appreciated that there is typically a COA which is included with this project as well, so that, if there is any destruction to the public right-of-way due to the development of the site, the applicant will amend it or replace it. She wanted confirmation that it is true, and that the hall route for grading at the site is something that is considered during the building permit process for construction management plans.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that maybe Contract Planner Garcia can doublecheck which condition number relates to damage to the public right-of-way by the project. He will address the traffic control plan issue and the hall route issue. He stated that the city does not have a haul route ordinance where the City requires approval of a haul route and that is something Public Works is aware of in considering how they can address it. He stated that it may be within the Commission’s discretion potentially to seek to address that point if there were specific safety issues and if the condition has in mind related to this project and its construction phase activity. He thought maybe more directly related to this project is requiring approval of a construction traffic control plan to allow safe ongoing operation by vehicular and pedestrian traffic with the addition of a construction related activity and equipment and any material staging. He stated that they have language ready that would recommend addressing that traffic control planning component of the project when it is the desire of the Commission to hear that.

14.d
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 25 of 31 ends

Vice Chair Berman suggested they hear it now unless any Commissioners are opposed to that.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock then read the draft language to the Commissioners.

Chair Nibbelin thanked him for that information.

Vice Chair Berman thought that addressed the concerns she heard from the public that weren’t addressed at this time.

Chair Nibbelin asked if a motion was in order or any other concerns.

Commissioner Hauser stated that she would be happy to make the motion inclusive of the two items the applicant has volunteered, i.e., the removal of the encroachment if that is the appropriate word or realigning of the driveway so the neighbor’s side yard is accessible and the inclusion of seven 24-inch box trees that must be irrigated and if the applicant abandons the project, having demolished the trees, the trees are replaced.

Chair Nibbelin suggested that she make the motion and they will incorporate that.

Commissioner Hauser moved that the Planning Commission FINDS the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A; and incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference including the two conditions she added.

Commissioner Ferguson noted that they didn’t include the condition of the traffic control plan to reviewed by city engineer and he asked if it was possible to include that in the motion if amenable to the Commissioners.

Chair Nibbelin stated that they can if Commissioner Hauser is open to that friendly amendment to include the language.

Commissioner Hauser stated that she was willing to amend her motion to include the traffic control plan.

Dep. Planner Director Murdock stated, that before seeking a second to the motion, he would read specific language to address those three points to have a clear indication of what the requirements would be for the project.

Chair Nibbelin asked him to go ahead and they will then confirm with Commissioner Hauser that it tracks her intent of the motion.

Dep. Planner Director Murdock then said the first was, prior to issuance of a building permit or encroachment permit, and as agreed to by the applicant, the applicant shall

14.d
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 26 of 31 ends

revise the project plan to confine the driveway and associated improvements within the public right-of-way, such as retaining walls to within the frontage of the project site. The second is, prior to issuance of a building permit, and as agreed to by the applicant, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include installation of seven 24-inch box trees to replace trees removed by the project in a species and placement to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, and lastly, prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit a traffic control plan that addresses construction phase, vehicle operation, parking, as well as material staging and that shall ensure continued vehicular and pedestrian access through and along Olympian Way, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. With all these, he will give Mr. Messinger an opportunity to make any adjustments that may be required.

Chair Nibbelin wanted to confirm that Mr. O’Connell indicated earlier, particularly with condition 2, that it was something he was agreeable to.

Mr. O’Connell agreed.

Chair Nibbelin asked Mr. Messinger if there was anything he wanted to add.

Mr. Messinger stated he had nothing to add.

Chair Nibbelin concluded that the language tracks with the intent of her motion.

Commissioner Hauser agreed.

Commissioner Domurat stated that there was also a concern by several speakers about not removing any trees until such a time as a permit is provided to the applicant, and he asked if that was a realistic condition that they don’t move anything until they are ready to construct.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought it was a reasonable timing related condition.

He stated that the Commission’s authorization to remove the heritage tree is necessitated by development of the project and, should the project not have a reasonable chance of moving forward because it hasn’t obtained a building permit, removal of the heritage tree could be reasonably concluded to be premature.

Commissioner Hauser stated that she does a lot of construction projects, and the reason she didn’t include that language is because there are lots of times where people need to get a grading permit or state improvement permit and start work such as rainy season requirements before getting a permit and that would be like the foundation of the rest of the building. She forgot that it wasn’t included in the condition and she tried to cover it with language that said, if for some reason the project is abandoned, those replacement trees would still have to be planted. She stated, if the applicant is amenable to the language that Commissioner Domurat suggested, she would be happy to include it but, if not, she would suggest adding the language she mentioned.

14.d
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 27 of 31 ends

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that his observation at this point is that he understands Commissioner Hauser’s sentiment of the site preparation requirements, etc., but very often, when a project doesn’t proceed, it is because the applicant has had some sort of hardship, financially or otherwise, and it would be difficult for staff to compel an applicant to replace a tree that has been removed, such as financially insolvent and do not have the means to do so or couldn’t be readily located or brought back to Pacifica, etc., which is one practical difficulty with that approach as compared to the other. He stated that there is no guarantee a project will move forward even when a building permit is issued, but at least it allows them to get closer to that point in time and it is demonstrated that they provided other payment of fees, etc., and a heritage tree removed is not immediately replaced in terms of size, etc.

Commissioner Hauser thought that makes sense. She asked Chair Nibbelin if it would be acceptable to ask the applicant his thoughts.

Chair Nibbelin agreed, and asked Mr. O’Connell if he can speak to this discussion.

Mr. O’Connell thought it was a good idea, as he would not to strip all the vegetation off the site through the rainy season. He was waiting to remove vegetation so they are ready to go.

Chair Nibbelin asked Commissioner Hauser if the timing of condition of removal of trees to a point at which any permit is proceeding.

Commissioner Hauser thought it was a building permit that would cover the structures and not just a demolition or grading permit.

Vice Chair Berman was not opposed to the direction of this discussion, but she wanted to add consideration of good forestry practices. She thought the arborist report stated that several of the trees on the site were in poor condition which is more hazardous to keep them rather than to remove them under the watch of an arborist. She thought this is a site where having dead heritage trees stay there could be more harmful than not.

Chair Nibbelin thanked her, stating that it was a helpful perspective. He then stated he would bring it back to Commissioner Hauser as the owner of the motion.

Commissioner Hauser thought it was a good point, and she was inclined to leave the motion as it currently is without the additional language, but could add language about good forestry practices if Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought it was appropriate, but she was happy with where it was now.

Chair Nibbelin asked for a second to the motion as it is currently.

Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion as it stands.

14.d
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022

Page 28 of 31 ends

Dep. Planning Director Murdock took a verbal roll call.

The motion carried 7-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Berman, Domurat, Ferguson,
Godwin, Hauser, Leal and Chair Nibbelin
Noes: None

14.d
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment D Planning Commission Minutes 01-18-22 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

CONSTRUCTION OF (N) SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE WITH ADU BELOW ON VACANT PARCEL NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME W/ ADUTBD OLYMPIAN WAYTBD OLYMPIAN WAYPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 12/04/2020 PROGRESS DESIGN2 12/16/2020 PROGRESS DESIGN3 04/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL4 10/21/2021 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL5 01/10/2022 PLANNING UPDATES 1/10/2022 8:26:06 AM
A0.0

TITLE SHEET

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY, PACIFICA, CA

NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME W/ ADU

RHB RADIANT HEATING BOILER
PROJECT COMMON ADDRESS:

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
PACIFICA, CA 94044
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 023-037-030
ZONING:

WNDW WINDOW

WT WEIGHT

WR WATER RESISTANT

WP WATERPROOF

W/O WITHOUT
W x H WIDTH BY HEIGHT

WH WATER HEATER

WD WOOD

WC WATER CLOSET

W/ WITH

W WEST, WASHER, OR WATER

VERT VERTICAL

UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

TYP TYPICAL

TV TELEVISION

TP TOP OF PAVEMENT

TOW TOP OF WALL

TOS TOP OF SUBFLOOR

TOP TOP OF PLATE

TO TOP OF

THK THICK

TEL TELEPHONE

TOC TOP OF CURB

TBD TO BE DETERMINED

T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE

TRANSFORMER

T TILE, TREAD, TOP, OR

SYM SYMMETRICAL

SW SHEAR WALL

SUBFLR SUBFLOOR

SUB SUBCONTRACTOR

STRUCT STRUCTURAL

STOR STORAGE

STL STEEL

SS SANITARY SEWER

SQ SQUARE

SPEC SPECIFICATION

SL SLIDING

SIM SIMILAR

SHTG SHEATHING

SHT SHEET

SHWR SHOWER

SH SHOWER HEAD

SF SQUARE FEET OR SQUARE FOOT

SD SMOKE DETECTOR/STORM
DRAIN

SCHED SCHEDULE

SB SETBACK

S SOUTH

ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY

RO ROUGH OPENING

RM ROOM

REV REVISION

REQ'D REQUIRED

REINF REINFORCED OR

REINFORCEMENT

REF REFRIGERATOR

RD ROOF DRAIN

RAG RETURN AIR GRILLE

R RADIUS

PT POINT OR PRESSURE TREATED

PR PAIR

PLYWD PLYWOOD

PL PLATE OR PROPERTY LINE

OPP OPPOSITE

O/H OVERHEAD

OH OVERHANG

OPNG OPENING

OFF OFFICE

OVERFLOW DRAIN

OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OR

OC ON CENTER

OA OVERALL
O OVEN

NTS NOT TO SCALE

NSF NET SQUARE FEET

NR NON-RATED

NOM NOMINAL

NIC NOT IN CONTRACT

NA NOT AVAILABLE

N/A NOT APPLICABLE
(N) NEW

N NORTH

MTL METAL

MTD MOUNTED

MLDG MOULDING

MISC MISCELLANEOUS

MIN MINIMUM

MH MANHOLE

MFR MANUFACTURER

MECH MECHANICAL

MAX MAXIMUM

LT LIGHT

LAV LAVATORY

LAM LAMINATE

LINEN LINEN CLOSET

JT JOINT OR JOINT TRENCH

INT INTERIOR

INSUL INSULATION

HR HOUR

HORIZ HORIZONTAL

HT HEIGHT

HDWD HARDWOOD

HDR HEADER

HC HANDICAP

GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD

GR GRADE

GL GLASS

GD GARBAGE DISPOSAL

GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR

GALV GALVANIZED

GA GAUGE
G GAS

FTG FOOTING

FT FOOT OR FEET

FP FIREPLACE

FLUOR FLUORESCENT

FL FLOOR

FIN FINISH

FF FINISHED FLOOR

FOUND FOUNDATION

FD FLOOR DRAIN

FAR FLOOR AREA RATIO

FAU FORCED AIR UNIT

FURN FURNACE

EXT EXTERIOR

EQPT EQUIPMENT

ENG ENGINEER

ELEV ELEVATION

ELEC ELECTRICAL

EA EACH
(E) EXISTING

DWG DRAWING

DW DISHWASHER

DS DOWNSPOUT

DR DOOR

DN DOWN

DIM DIMENSION

DIA DIAMETER

DEG DEGREES

DEPT DEPARTMENT

DBL DOUBLE

D DRYER

CONT CONTINUOUS

CONC CONCRETE

COL COLUMN

CO CLEAN OUT

CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT

CLST CLOSET

CLG CEILING

CL CENTERLINE

CB CATCH BASIN

CAB CABINET

BOT BOTTOM

BM BEAM

BLKG BLOCKING

BLK BLOCK

BLDG BUILDING

AS ABOVE SLAB

ASF ABOVE SUBFLOOR

APPROX APPROXIMATE

AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR

A/C AIR CONDITIONER

AB ANCHOR BOLT
# NUMBER
@ AT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY: R3/U
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB

BEARING AND NON-BEARING
WALLS (LESS THAN 5' FROM
PROPERTY LINE): 1-HOUR
OPENINGS NOT PERMITTED LESS THAN 3'

FROM PROPERTY LINE
NUMBER OF STORIES: 3

PLANNING DATA

ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT SCOPE BUILDING CODE DATA PROJECT INFORMATION R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

CONSTRUCTION OF (N) SINGLE FAMILY HOME

AND DETACHED GARAGE WITH ADU BELOW ON
VACANT PARCEL.

ALL WORK TO CONFORM TO 2019 CRC, CBC,
CFC, CPC, CMC, CEC, CEnC, AND CGBC.

LOT SIZE

APPLICANT / OWNER -

PROJECT DIRECTORY

SERVICE COMPANY CONTACT TELEPHONE

PROJECT NOTES
FIRE SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT, PER NFPA 13D STANDARDS.

CALGREEN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
* CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE, AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

MANUAL TO THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT,
ADDRESSING ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 IN CALGREEN SECTION 4.410.1. * PER CALGREEN SECTION 4.408.2, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN, DIVERTING A
MINIMUM OF 65% OF WASTE GENERATED AT THE SITE TO RECYCLE OR SALVAGE, TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLAN:
· IDENTIFY MATERIALS TO BE RECYCLED, REUSED, OR SALVAGED · SPECIFY IF MATERIALS WILL BE SORTED ON SITE OR MIXED FOR TRANSPORTATION · IDENTIFY THE DIVERSION FACILITY(IES) TO BE USED
· IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO BE USED TO LIMIT WASTE GENERATION · SPECIFY THAT THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS DIVERTED ARE TO BE CALCULATED BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME * AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS CONTROLLERS INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION SHALL BE WEATHER-BASED.
* PROTECT ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, AND CONDUITS AT EXTERIOR WALLS AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF RODENTS.
* COVER DUCT OPENINGS AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
* ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC AND OTHER TOXIC COMPOUND LIMITS.
* PAINTS, STAINS, AND OTHER COATINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC LIMITS. * AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH PRODUCT WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC AND OTHER TOXIC COMPOUNDS.

VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
* CARPET AND CARPET SYSTEMS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC LIMITS. * MINIMUM OF 80% OF FLOOR AREA RECEIVING RESILIENT FLOORING SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION

4.504.4.
* PARTICLEBOARD, MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD, AND HARDWOOD PLYWOOD USED IN INTERIOR

FINISH SYSTEMS SHALL COMPLY WITH LOW
FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS.
* INSTALL CAPILLARY BREAK AND VAPOR RETARDER AT SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONS. * CHECK MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS USED IN WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING BEFORE ENCLOSURE.
* EACH BATHROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH AN ENERGY STAR EXHAUST FAN, AND

FAN MUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY
CONTROL.
* DUCT SYSTEMS SHALL BE SIZED, DESIGNED, AND EQUIPMENT SELECTED PER SECTION 4.507.2. HVAC

SYSTEM INSTALLERS MUST BE TRAINED
AND CERTIFIED AND SPECIAL INSPECTORS EMPLOYED BY THE ENFORCING AGENCY MUST BE QUALIFIED. -

DESIGN / DRAFTING BRIAN BRINKMAN DRAFTING & DESIGN BRIAN BRINKMAN 7,289 SF
GARAGE 603 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
M = T + F (SQ.RT.( L - S ))
M = 2,800 + 12 (SQ.RT.(7,289 - 5,000 ))
M = 2,800 + 12 (47.84)
M = 2,800 + 574 M = 3,374
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA = 3,372 S.F.

PROPOSED GARAGE AREA OVER 650 S.F. = 0
APPLICABLE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA = 3,372 3,372 < 3,374
PROJECT DOES NOT TRIGGER ORDINANCE NO. 771 - C.S.

ORDINANCE 771-CS CALCS

DRAWING INDEX
A0.0 TITLE SHEET
A0.1 3D VIEWS
A0.2 3D VIEWS 2
A0.3 MATERIALS PERSPECTIVE
C1.1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C2.1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C3.1 DETAILS
A1.1 SITE PLAN
A1.3 RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS
A1.4 EXISTING TREE PLAN
A1.5 LANDSCAPE PLAN
A1.6 NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT
A2.1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
A2.4 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
A2.5 ROOF PLAN
A3.1 FRONT ELEVATIONS
A3.2 RIGHT ELEVATION
A3.3 REAR ELEVATIONS
A3.4 LEFT ELEVATION
A3.5 LONGITUDINAL SECTION
A3.6 LONGITUDINAL SECTION @ STAIRWELL
A3.7 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS

FIRE SPRINKLERS IN
EXISTING STRUCTURE:

NO
LEVEL 2 LIVING AREA 1,433 SF (CONDITIONED)
LEVEL 3 LIVING AREA 1,429 SF (CONDITIONED)
TOTAL HOUSE LIVING AREA 3,372 SF (CONDITIONED)
LEVEL 1 LIVING AREA 510 SF (CONDITIONED)
ADU LIVING AREA 434 SF (CONDITIONED)

SURVEYOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SERVICES MIKE MAHONEY
650-922-7993
(650) 244-9667

TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
LEVEL 3 COVERED FRONT
PORCH

TOTAL PAVER AREA

TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
LEVEL 3 COVERED DECK
LEVEL 2 COVERED DECK
LEVEL 1 COVERED DECK
146 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
58 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
100 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
98 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
1,477 + 636 + 45 = 2,158 SF
2,113 SF / 7,289 SF = 28.99%
TOTAL PAVED AREA 1,403 SF / 7,289 SF = 19.25%
282 SF / 7,289 SF = 3.87%

TOTAL EXTERIOR STAIRS /
CONC. RETAINING WALL AREA
497 SF / 7,289 SF = 6.82%
3,472 SF / 7,289 SF = 47.63%
SHED 45 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)

14.e
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

14.e
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

14.e
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

MATERIALS

PERSPECTIVE
1 3D VIEW - MATERIALS
EXTERIOR MATERIALS:

1. SIDING: NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

2. TRIM: CEDAR WOOD TRIM PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE 'WHITE DOVE' (TYP.)

3. RETAINING WALLS: CONCRETE WITH TAUPE COLORED FINISH

4. ROOFING: GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

5. WINDOWS: MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS WITH 'WHITE' COLOR EXTERIOR SASH (TYP.)

6. GARAGE DOORS: WOOD PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM

7. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS: COPPER GUTTERS / DOWNSPOUTS

8. RAILINGS: ALUMINUM FRAMED WITH WOOD TOP CAP AND SS CABLE SPACED SUCH THAT A 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH

9. DRIVEWAY: CONCRETE WITH TAUPE COLORED FINISH

10. BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE 'WHITE DOVE' 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1 8
3 4
9 10

14.e
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

14.e
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

14.e
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) © © NOTES

SAN PEDRO VALLEY, LLC

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY

PACIFICA, CA

14.e
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
188'
189'190'191'192'
193'194'195'
196'197'
198'199'200'201'202'203'204'205'
206'
207'
208'209'
210'
211'212'213'
214'
215'
216'
217'
218'219'
220'
221'
222'223'
224'225'
226'227'228'229'230'231'232'233'234'235'236'
237'
238'
238'
A3.1 2
A3.4
1 A3.2
1 1 A3.3
2 A3.7
2 A3.5

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
(N) 3-STORY HOME
APN 023-037-030

NATURAL VEGETATION

SITE PLAN LINE LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK

ELECTRICAL
WATER

PHONE/CABLE
GAS
SEWER
WATTLE
5' - 0"

OLYMPIAN WAY
1' - 0" 10' - 5 1/2" 29' - 0" 13' - 10" 39' - 6" 25' - 7" (N) GARAGE

W/ ADU BELOW
18° 09' 00"

38.32'
N
E
12° 30' 00"

13.31'
N
W
85° 14' 00"

52.38'
S E
85° 14' 00"
118.37'
S E
4° 46' 00"

75.00'
N
E
85° 14' 00"

68.84'
S E
12° 30' 00"

26.19'
N
W
39' - 4 1/2"
15' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0"
20' - 0"
5' - 0" 24' - 0"
10' - 5 1/2"
20' - 8 7/8"
(N) CONC

DRIVEWAY
(N) LEVEL 2 AND 3 DECKS
17' - 1 1/2"
5' - 6 3/8" 15' - 4" 24' - 0 1/2" 5' - 1"
1 A3.7
A3.1 1
2 A3.3
3' - 0"
(N) LEVEL

FRONT YARD
(E) EDGE OF PAVEMENT
(N) MINIMUM 22' WIDE

EXTENT OF PAVED ROAD
(N) TURNOUT EXTENT

COVERED

FRONT PORCH
GARAGE SLAB = 234'-1"
ADU FF = 224'-0"
LEVEL 1 FF = 204'-6"
LEVEL 2 FF = 213'-9"
22' - 0" 8' - 3 3/8" 2' - 0" LEVEL 3 FF = 224'-0" 25' - 8 5/8" (N)

TURNOUT
11%
16%
10%
4' - 6" 3' - 6 3/4" 5' - 0"
(N) AREA OF ADDED PAVEMENT

NO ROOF EAVE SHALL PROJECT CLOSER
THAN 30" TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES
CONC
PATIO
CONC
PATIO
2' - 10"
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
(N) UNDERGROUND JOINT TRENCH (ELECTRICAL,
CABLE) TO (N) 200 AMP ELEC METER AND MAIN

SERVICE PANEL AT GARAGE (E) SEWER

BACK-UP SPACE
25' - 0"
(E) WATER
LINE
(N) WATER LATERAL

SETBACK TO ADU
16' - 4 1/4"
5' - 6 3/8"
5' - 0 3/8"
CONC
20' - 0 5/8"
PATIO
(N) GAS METER
(N) U/G GAS LATERAL TO

CONNECT TO (E) MAIN AT

STREET PER PG&E

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

SITE PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0" 1

SITE PLAN
N
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

ALL ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS REQUIRE 24-HOUR NOTICE.

CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE STREET OR SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL ONLY BE DONE BETWEEN 9 AM & 4 PM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY EXCEPT CITY HOLIDAYS, WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY ENGINEER.

ROADWAYS AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE MAINTAINED CLEAR OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES. DAILY ROAD CLEANUP WILL BE ENFORCED.

HOLES OR TRENCHES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE BACKFILLED BEFORE

LEAVING EACH NIGHT UNLESS WRITTEN PERMISSION IS PROVIDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, WHICH MUST BE REQUESTED AT LEAST 24 HOURS ADVANCE.

ALL RECORDED SURVEY POINTS, MONUMENTS, RAILROAD SPIKES, PINS, CROSS CUTS ON

TOP OF SIDEWALKS AND TAGS ON TOP OF CULVERT HEADWALLS OR END WALLS,

WHETHER WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SHALL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED. IF SURVEY POINT(S) ARE ALTERED, REMOVED, OR DESTROYED, THE

APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE SERVICES OF A LICENSED

SURVEYOR OR QUALIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER TO RESTORE OR REPLACE THE SURVEY

POINTS AND RECORD THE THE REQUIRED MAP, PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUED FROM PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR WORK DONE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OFWAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY STANDARDS. AN ENCROACHMENT BOND (OR

CASH OR CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT) WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC EASEMENTS SHALL BE

CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF PACIFICA SPECIFICATIONS AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY. IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN

RETAINING WALLS AND BUILDING STRUCTURES ARE REVIEWED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS/HER DESIGNATED OFFICIALS. RETAINING WALLS AND BUILDING

STRUCTURES ARE REVIEWED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIS/HER DESIGNATED OFFICIALS.

EXISTING SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, OR STREET ADJACENT TO PROPERTY FRONTAGE

THAT IS DAMAGED OR DISPLACED SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED EVEN IF DAMAGE OR DISPLACEMENT OCCURRED PRIOR TO ANY WORK PERFORMED FOR THIS PROJECT.

ANY DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TO ANY PRIVATE

PROPERTY, WHETHER ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY OR NOT, THAT IS DETERMINED

BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO HAVE RESULTED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES RELATED

TO THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

NO PRIVATE STRUCTURE (i.e. BUILDING, RETAINING WALL, FENCE, MAILBOX, ETC.) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ENCROACHING INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

TRENCHES OR HOLES IN THE STREET OR SIDEWALK AREAS MUST HAVE A 6" SHOULDER ON ALL SIDES (A 6" TEE-CUT) AT LEAST 16" BELOW THE FINISHED SURFACE. FROM THAT

LEVEL UP TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE PAVEMENT OR CONCRETE, THE TRENCH OR HOLE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH CALTRANS CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL, COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY (PLACED AND COMPACTED IN MAX 8" LIFTS).

REFER TO CITY STANDARD 301A.

PATCHES WITHIN 12 INCHES OF PAVEMENT EDGE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO THE PAVEMENT EDGE. PAVEMENT PATCH MUST BE CALTRANS 1/2" MEDIUM HOT MIX ASPHALT COMPACTED TO 95% IN 2" LIFTS.

PATCHES IN CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACHES SHALL BE SAW-CUT AT EXISTING SCORE JOINTS, INCLUDING 6" BEHIND THE FACE OF CURB IF THE CURB IS NOT BEING REPLACED. 1/2" x 12" DOWELS MUST BE INSERTED AT LEAST 4" INTO ADJACENT CURB AND 6" INTO ADJACENT FLATWORK.

A 6" DEEP LAYER OF CALTRANS CLASS 2 AB, COMPACTED TO 95% OVER ACCEPTABLE NATIVE SOIL COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90% IS REQUIRED BENEATH DRIVEWAY APPROACHES. CONCRETE THICKNESS MUST BE AT LEAST 6" FOR RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS.

COVERS OR PLATES OR OTHER ITEMS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK AREA MUST BE

FLUSH WITH THE SURROUNDING SURFACE, AND MUST NOT HAVE GAPS OR HOLES THAT

JEOPARDIZE BICYCLISTS, CHILDREN, PEDESTRIANS, SENIORS, OR THE DISABLED, AND MUST HAVE NON-SLIP SURFACES.

THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER SHALL CONTACT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (PHONE 738-4669) 24 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

TRENCHING, BACKFILLING, PAVEMENT RESTORATION, SEWER TAP, PIPE INSTALLATION OR ANY OTHER SEWAGE WORK.

NO DEBRIS BOX OR EQUIPMENT SHED IS ALLOWED IN THE STREET OR SIDEWALK.

NO WASTEWATER (INCLUDING EQUIPMENT CLEANING WASH WATER, VEHICLE WASH

WATER, COOLING WATER, AIR CONDITIONER CONDENSATE, AND FLOOR CLEANING WASH WATER) SHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, THE STREET, OR GUTTER.

SLOPE CALCULATIONS FOR FRONT 50% OF PARCEL
SLOPE = (0.00229) (CONTOUR INTERVAL, IN FEET) (TOTAL LENGTH OF CONTOURS, IN FEET) (AREA (FRONT 50% OF PARCEL), IN ACRES)
SLOPE = (0.00229) (1) (1,711.48)
(0.0986)
SLOPE = 39.75%
*** WITH THE SLOPE OF THE FRONT HALF OF THE PARCEL GREATER THAN 25%, THE REDUCED FRONT SETBACK TO THE GARAGE (10'), AS PROVIDED IN PMC SEC. 9-4.2704(b) HAS BEEN UTILIZED.

14.e
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) DN
DN
188'
189'190'191'192'
193'194'195'
196'197'
198'199'200'201'202'203'204'
205'
206'207'
208'209'
210'
211'212'213'
214'
215'
216'
217'
218'
219'
220'
221'
222'223'
224'
225'
226'
227'
228'229'
230'231'232'
233'234'
235'
236'237'
238'
188'
189'190'191'192'
193'194'195'
196'197'
198'199'200'201'202'203'204'205'
206'
207'
208'209'
210'
211'212'213'214'215'
216'
217'218'
219'
220'
221'
222'
223'
224'225'226'227'228'229'230'231'232'233'234'235'236'237' 238' 237'
237
23 '
8' 238'
204'
205'
206'
202'
203'204'
202'
203'204'
195'196'197'
198'199'
195'196'197'
198'
199'
211'
212'
213'
214'
215'
216'
217'
218'
219'
220'
221'
223'
224'
225'
226'
223'
224'
225
22 '
9'
230'
231'
232'
233'
234'
235'
236
32 '
7'
228'
229'
230'
231'
232'
233'
234'
235'
236
2 '
37'
215'
216'
217'
218'
219'
220'
221'
222'
214'
215'
216'
217'
218'
219'
220'
221'
222'
239'
240'
241'
242'
239'
240'
241'
242'
240'
241'
242'
240'
241'
242'
2 A3.7
2 A3.5
1 A3.7

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
(N) 2-STORY HOME
APN 023-037-030
(N) GARAGE

W/ ADU BELOW
GARAGE SLAB = 234'-1"
ADU FF = 224'-0"
LEVEL 1 FF = 204'-6"
LEVEL 2 FF = 213'-9"
LEVEL 3 FF = 224'-0"
4° 46' 00"

75.00'
N
E
85° 14' 00"
118.37'
S E
18° 09' 00"

38.32'
N
E
12° 30' 00"

13.31'
N
W
85° 14' 00"

52.38'
S E
12° 30' 00"

26.19'
N
W
85° 14' 00"

68.84'
S E
O
L
Y
M
P
I
A
N
WAY
238' - 10"
238' - 6"
233' - 7"
235' - 7"
233' - 7"
227' - 2"
223' - 6"
233' - 7"
222' - 10"
222' - 10"
240' - 5" 239' - 0"
238' - 2"
240' - 2"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

GRADING PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0" 1

GRADING PLAN
N

14.e
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) 238' - 7"
238' - 10"
223' - 6"
239' - 1"
239' - 1"
239' - 1"
233' - 7"
234' - 7"
223' - 0"
223' - 6"
223' - 6"
204' - 6"
204' - 6"
200' - 6"
200' - 6"
204' - 6"
200' - 6"
201' - 1"
194' - 0"
198' - 6"
201' - 0"
204' - 6"
234' - 10"
209' - 2"
213' - 9"
216' - 9"
212' - 8"
210' - 6"
204' - 10"
204' - 0"
204' - 6"
204' - 0"
201' - 0"
199' - 0"
212' - 7"
200' - 6"
238' - 7"
238' - 10"
204' - 6"
200' - 6"
194' - 0"
223' - 6"
227' - 9"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

RETAINING WALL

HEIGHTS
1 3D SITE RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS 1
2 3D SITE RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS 2

14.e
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
APN 023-037-030

OLYMPIAN WAY
4° 46' 00"

75.00'
N E
85° 14' 00"
118.37'
SE
18° 09' 00" 38.32' N E
12° 30' 00"

13.31' N
W
85° 14' 00"

52.38'
SE
12° 30' 00"

26.19' N
W
85° 14' 00"

68.84'
SE4
5 6
7 8
1 23

ALL TREES ON PROPERTY TO BE REMOVED

PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

PER ARBORIST REPORT FOR ALL TREES

ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

EXISTING TREE
PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING TREE PLAN
N

14.e
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) DN
DN

TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
(N) 3-STORY HOME
APN 023-037-030

OLYMPIAN WAY
(N) GARAGE

W/ ADU BELOW
(N) CONC

DRIVEWAY
(N) LEVEL

FRONT YARD

COVERED

FRONT PORCH
(N)

TURNOUT

L I A II A I A II A
AK

K I MMMBBBMMMMBBB

M M M M
MM
M
M M
G

GGMMMMMMMM
M
MM

G G GH F F F F F I
A
A
F

C E F F F II HH
GIG
DI H
J
J
D
J
C
CAAE
BD
C
FFB
DBII
GRASS
PATIO
PATIO
J

FA I G I I
HOT
TUB
PATIO
N
N

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 LANDSCAPE PLAN

PLANTING SCHEDULE
LETTER ABR BOTANICAL NAME Type Count SIZE
WUCOLS
WATER
USE
CAL
NATIVE

DROUGHT

TOLERANT SOURCE

SEA COAST

TOLERANT
Leaf 16
Lombardy Poplar - 40' 3
A MYR CAL Myrica California Pacific Wax Myrtle 14 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY B ACH MOO Achille 'Moonshine' Moonshine Yarrow 9 1 GAL LOW YES YES MONROVIA VERY C SAL CLE Salvia Clevelandii *California Blue Sage 5 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY D RIB SAN Ribes Sanguineum Glutinosum *Pink Flowered Currant 4 1 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY E RHA CAL Rhamnus Californica 'Mound San Bruno' *California Coffee Berry 2 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY F MUH RIG Muhlenbergia Rigens *Deer Grass 13 1 GAL LOW YES YES SAN MARCOS GROWERS VERY G EPI CAN Epilobium Canum *California Fuschia 10 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY H SAL BEE Salvia Bees Bliss *Bees Bliss Salvia 4 1 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY I LEY CON Leymus Condensatus Canyon Prince 19 1 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY J MIM AUR Mimulus Aurantiacus *Sticky Monkey Flower 4 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY K ARB MAR Arbutas Unedo Strawberry Tree 2 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY L QUG AGR Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Tree 1 15 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY M CLI DOU Clinopodium Douglasii Yerba Bueno 26 1 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY N SAM NIG SAMBUCUS NIGRA Blue Elderberry 4 5 GAL LOW YES YES CALSCAPE VERY N

14.e
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) T
B
D
O
LY
M
P
I
AN
WAY
AP
N
0 2
3 -
0 3
7 -
0 3
0 T
B
D
O
LY
M
P
I
AN
WAY
AP
N
0 2
3 -
0 3
7 -
0 3
0 DISTANCE FROM NEAREST FIRE

HYDRANT TO FURTHEST POINT
OF BUILDING = +/- 433'

DISTANCE FROM STREET

ACCESS TO FURTHEST POINT
OF BUILDING = +/- 100'
32'
301'
1 0
0 '
1 0
0 '

OLYMPIAN WAY

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

NEAREST FIRE

HYDRANT
1" = 40'-0"
1 NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT
1" = 40'-0"
2 FIRE PLAN
N
N

14.e
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) UP
WP
MS
L WP
MS
L
2 A3.5
1 A3.7
39' - 0 3/4"
15' - 7 1/2" 8' - 5" 15' - 4"
39' - 4 1/2"
11' - 11 1/2" 4' - 1"

BONUS ROOM

CRAWL SPACE
4' - 0 1/2" 8' - 0" 4' - 9 1/2" 6' - 0"
1' - 2 1/2"
1' - 2" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 3' - 0" 1' - 2" D139
BEDROOM 5
BATH 3
1 A3.6
3' - 3"
3' - 3" 5' - 0" 3' - 8 1/2" 4' - 10 1/2"
D140
D156
D141
127
128
126
139 140 138
112
23' - 0 1/4" 16' - 0 1/2"
1' - 10 1/2" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 3' - 0" 1' - 2" 15' - 4"

EXTENT OF RETAINING WALLS ABOVE
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
15 0' - 7 3/8"
0' - 10"
STAIRS
13' - 3 1/2" 2' - 4" 3' - 5" 5' - 5 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2" 1' - 0" 8' - 0 1/2" 3' - 5 1/2" 4' - 1"
5' - 9" 5' - 9"
7' - 4"
CLOSET
D157

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSED STUD WALL

PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL

EXISTING / PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED 1-HOUR WALL

WALL LEGEND
N
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 1 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments
112 5' - 0" 4' - 6" 3' - 0" 7' - 6" CASEMENT
126 3' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 7' - 0" CASEMENT
127 3' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 7' - 0" CASEMENT
128 3' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 7' - 0" FIXED
138 3' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 7' - 0" CASEMENT
139 3' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 7' - 0" CASEMENT
140 3' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 7' - 0" FIXED
LEVEL 1 DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments
D139 8' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDER
D140 2' - 4" 7' - 0" SINGLE
D141 2' - 8" 7' - 0" SINGLE
D156 6' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDER
D157 6' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDING

14.e
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) DN
Washer Dryer
WP
MS
L WP
MS
L
UP
2 A3.5

MASTER BEDROOM
39' - 10 1/2"
15' - 10" 24' - 0 1/2"
1 A3.7

MASTER BATH
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4
12' - 11 1/2" 2' - 5" 5' - 6 1/2" 5' - 6 1/2" 6' - 4 1/2" 6' - 6 1/2" 0' - 6" 5' - 0 3/8" CLOSET
5' - 6 1/4" 6' - 4" 11' - 3" 16' - 4 1/2"
11' - 2 3/4" 11' - 0" 12' - 9" 4' - 6"
HALL
CLOSET

WALK-IN
CLOSET

LAUNDRY
BATH 2
LEVEL 2 DECK
39' - 10 1/2"
39' - 5 3/4"
39' - 5 3/4"

DOWNWARD PROJECTING

WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS
STAIRS
STAIRS
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
15 0' - 7 3/8"
0' - 10"
3' - 7 1/2" 8' - 0" 5' - 4" 6' - 0" 1' - 1" 0' - 10" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 10" 0' - 11 3/4" 4' - 0" 1' - 10 1/4" 4' - 0" 3' - 7 3/4" 5' - 0" 3' - 7 1/2" 1' - 4 1/2" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 10" 2' - 8 1/4" 6' - 0" 5' - 4 1/2" 5' - 0" 6' - 9 1/2" 5' - 0" 4' - 1 1/2" 84 83 82
D133
D134
71 69 70
58 57
59 D122
D125
D106
D123
D126
D96 D119
D120
D118
D130
D105
3' - 1"
1 A3.6
5' - 0 1/2" 2' - 10"

LINEN BROOM
D143
D144
106 104
D150
0' - 6" 15' - 2" 1' - 6 1/2" 7' - 0" 15' - 8"
8' - 0 1/2" 3' - 11"
1' - 6" 3' - 3 1/2"
3' - 6" 3' - 6"
8' - 2" 7' - 9 1/2"
3' - 1"
4' - 5 3/8"
D158
CLOSET
D161
EQ EQ

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSED STUD WALL

PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL

EXISTING / PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED
1-HOUR WALL
WALL LEGEND LEVEL 2 DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments
D96 2' - 8" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D105 6' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDING
D106 2' - 8" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D118 2' - 8" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D119 2' - 8" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D120 6' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDING
D122 2' - 8" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D123 2' - 6" 8' - 0" SINGLE
LEVEL 2 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments
57 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 1' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED
58 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 1' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED
59 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 1' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED
69 4' - 6" 4' - 2" 3' - 10" 8' - 0" FIXED
70 4' - 6" 4' - 2" 3' - 10" 8' - 0" FIXED
71 4' - 6" 4' - 2" 3' - 10" 8' - 0" FIXED
LEVEL 2 DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments
D125 2' - 4" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D126 2' - 4" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D130 8' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDER
D133 2' - 2" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D134 2' - 6" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D143 4' - 0" 8' - 0" DOUBLE
D144 4' - 0" 8' - 0" DOUBLE
D150 6' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDER
D158 6' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDING
D161 6' - 0" 8' - 0" DOUBLE
LEVEL 2 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments
82 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT
83 4' - 0" 3' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDER
84 4' - 0" 3' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDER
104 5' - 0" 4' - 6" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT
106 5' - 0" 4' - 6" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT
135 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
169 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
170 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING

14.e
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) UP
MS
WP L
MS
WP L
REF
Washer
DN
Refrigerator
DW
UP
2 A3.7
2 A3.5
39' - 4 1/2"
1 A3.7
23' - 1 1/4" 13' - 10"
15' - 10" 24' - 0 1/2"
39' - 10 1/2"
11' - 4"
12' - 9 1/4"12' - 9 1/4"
3' - 2" 5' - 0" 3' - 2"
ADU BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
CLOSET
DINING
LEVEL 3 DECK

LIVING ROOM
0' - 6"
12' - 6" 3' - 8" 3' - 9" 3' - 2 1/2" 16' - 4 1/2"
39' - 4 1/2"
33' - 0" 6' - 1" 0' - 5"
2' - 0" 2' - 8" 10' - 4" 2' - 8" 15' - 4"
1/2
BATH
3' - 0 1/2" 18' - 0" 3' - 0" 0' - 10" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 10" 3' - 6"

COVERED

FRONT PORCH

KITCHEN
39' - 6"
39' - 6"
1' - 2" 2' - 8" 5' - 1 1/2" 2' - 8" 5' - 0" 2' - 8" 3' - 10" 1' - 1 1/2" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 0' - 4" 4' - 6" 1' - 1" 5' - 0"
STAIRS
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
16 0' - 7 5/8"
1' - 0"
39' - 4 1/2"
3'-8 3/4" 6'-0" 7'-11 1/4" 2'-0" 6" 3'-0" 6" 2'-0" 4'-9 1/2" 5'-0" 3'-11"

DOWNWARD PROJECTING

RECESSED CAN LIGHTS IN
SOFFIT

CEILING MOUNTED ENTRY

LIGHT AT FRONT PORCH

DOWNWARD PROJECTING

WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS
D91
D92
D113
D116
D114
64 65 63
72 D88
D87
89 90 85
ADU

KITCHEN
3' - 7" 10' - 3" 5' - 7 1/2" 12' - 5 1/4"
ALCOVE
1 A3.6
D146
CLOSET
D148
3' - 7" 2' - 0" 14' - 11 1/4"
PANTRY

CABINET
TRASH
ENTRY
13' - 0"
4' - 0" 4' - 0 1/2" 3' - 0" 1' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 1 1/2" 2' - 0" 1' - 0" 114
LINEN
UPPERS
145
10' - 6"
163
2' - 3" 4' - 0" 1' - 3"
1' - 0" 3' - 6" 4' - 0" 3' - 6" 3' - 0"
164 168 165 167
171
173
172
3' - 6" 5' - 8 1/2"
STAIRS
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
16 0' - 7 3/4"
0' - 10" 4' - 0 1/2" 3' - 4 1/2" 8' - 9 1/2"

GAS FIREPLACE AND BUILT-IN CABINETRY
24' - 1 1/4"
185
184
23' - 1 1/4"
16' - 2 5/8" 5' - 0" 1' - 10 5/8"
187
4' - 0"
190
STAIRS
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
14 0' - 7 5/8"
0' - 10"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSED STUD WALL

PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL

EXISTING / PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED
1-HOUR WALL
WALL LEGEND LEVEL 3 DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments
D87 3' - 0" 8' - 0" SINGLE
D88 18' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDING
D91 6' - 0" 8' - 0" DOUBLE
D92 6' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDING
D113 2' - 10" 7' - 0" SINGLE
D114 2' - 4" 8' - 0" OPENING
D116 2' - 10" 7' - 0" SINGLE
D138 2' - 10" 7' - 0" SINGLE
LEVEL 3 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments
63 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 10" 10' - 4" FIXED
64 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 10" 10' - 4" FIXED
65 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 10" 10' - 4" FIXED
66 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
67 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
68 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
72 4' - 6" 6' - 0" 2' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED
85 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
89 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
90 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
114 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
LEVEL 3 DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments
D146 2' - 6" 8' - 0" POCKET
D148 2' - 4" 8' - 0" SINGLE
LEVEL 3 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments
145 5' - 0" 5' - 6" 3' - 10" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
163 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
164 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
165 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
167 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
168 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 5' - 4" 9' - 4" CASEMENT
171 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 10" 10' - 4" FIXED
172 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 10" 10' - 4" FIXED
173 4' - 6" 6' - 6" 3' - 10" 10' - 4" FIXED
174 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
175 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
176 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" AWNING
184 2' - 0" 2' - 8" 5' - 4" 8' - 0" CASEMENT
185 2' - 0" 2' - 8" 5' - 4" 8' - 0" CASEMENT

14.e
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) DN
WP
MS
L WP
MS
L WP
MS
L
WP
MS
L
DN
WP
MS
L
2 A3.7
2 A3.5
24' - 0"
1' - 9" 9' - 2" 2' - 2" 9' - 2" 1' - 9" 0' - 11 3/8"3' - 0" 1' - 0 3/4" 4' - 6" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 6"
GARAGE
11' - 4" 12' - 8"
0' - 9" 3' - 0" 11' - 4 3/8" 4' - 0" 9' - 10 5/8"
24' - 0" 5' - 0"
29' - 0"

DOWNWARD PROJECTING WALL MOUNTED
LIGHTS
D84 D83
D86
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
16 0' - 7 5/8"
1' - 0"
87 88
24' - 0"
29' - 0"
189
188
3' - 1" 19' - 7"
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
14 0' - 7 5/8"
0' - 10"
3' - 8" 4' - 0" 3' - 8"
D159

ADU ENTRY
(N) 200 AMP MAIN ELEC SERVICE PANEL AND METER
(N) GAS METER

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

GARAGE FLOOR
PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
N

PROPOSED STUD WALL

PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL

EXISTING / PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED 1-HOUR WALL

WALL LEGEND

GARAGE LEVEL DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments
D83 9' - 0" 7' - 0" OVERHEAD
D84 9' - 0" 7' - 0" OVERHEAD
D86 3' - 0" 7' - 0" SINGLE
D159 3' - 0" 7' - 0" SINGLE
D164 1' - 4" 3' - 0" SINGLE

GARAGE LEVEL WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments
87 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 3' - 6" 7' - 0" SLIDER
88 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 3' - 6" 7' - 0" SLIDER
188 4' - 0" 3' - 0" 4' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDER
189 4' - 0" 3' - 0" 4' - 0" 7' - 0" SLIDER

14.e
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) 2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0"
3 1/2" / 1'-0"
3 1/2" / 1'-0"
3 1/2" / 1'-0"
3 1/2" / 1'-0"
TYPICAL OVERHANG UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
8' - 1"
1' - 6"
3" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0"
2' - 0"
3" / 1'-0"

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW

COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)
(N) CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA

BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING, MODIFIED

BITUMEN ROOFING SYSTEM, OR
SIMILAR (MIN CLASS B FIRE RATING).

ROOF SHALL BE FRAMED FLAT AND

THE ROOFING SHALL BE BUILT UP TO
PROVIDE THE 2% SLOPE TOWARDS
THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW

COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
3" / 1'-0"
[No Slope]
[No Slope]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

ROOF PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ROOF PLAN
N

14.e
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10'
- 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14' - 6 1/2"
LEVEL 2 PLATE-1' - 2"
DOWNWARD PROJECTING WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS (TYP.)
4' - 5 1/2" 10' - 1" 1' - 2"
14' - 6 1/2"
3 1/2"
/
1 '
-0"
D91 D87
145
3"
/
1 '
-0"
3 "
/
1 '-
0 "
3 "
/
1 '-
0 "
NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COMPOSITION
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

ALUMINUM FRAMED WITH WOOD TOP CAP AND SS CABLE
SPACED SUCH THAT A 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH

MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS WITH 'WHITE' COLOR
EXTERIOR SASH (TYP.)

BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING PAINTED BENJAMIN

MOORE 'WHITE DOVE'
ADU SUBFLR 0'
- 9"
GARAGE SLAB 9'
- 7"
GARAGE PLATE 17'
- 8"
GARAGE TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 9"
DOWNWARD PROJECTING WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS (TYP.)
2' - 1" 8' - 1"
10' - 2"
2"
/
1 '
-
0"
87 88
NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COMPOSITION
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

ALUMINUM FRAMED WITH WOOD TOP CAP AND SS CABLE
SPACED SUCH THAT A 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH

MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS WITH 'WHITE' COLOR
EXTERIOR SASH (TYP.)

CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS WITH TAUPE

COLORED FINISH
ADU SUBFLR 0'
- 9"
(N) GAS METER

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 HOUSE FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 GARAGE FRONT ELEVATION

14.e
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10'
- 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14'
- 6 1/2"
4' - 5 1/2" 10' - 1" 1' - 2" 9' - 1" 1' - 2" 8' - 1" 0' - 6" 34' - 6 1/2"
LEVEL 2 PLATE
-1' - 2"
LEVEL 2 SUB
-10' - 3"
GARAGE SLAB 9'
- 7"
GARAGE PLATE 17' - 8"
GARAGE TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 9"

FOUNDATION PLATE
-11' - 5"

LOWEST ADJ GRADE
-20' - 0"
2' - 1" 8' - 1" 8' - 10"
19' - 0"
LEVEL 1 SUB
-19' - 6"
DOWNWARD PROJECTING WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS (TYP.)
D84 D83
D86
2"
/
1 '
-
0"
2 "
/
1 '-
0 "
0' - 6"
114 164 163 168 165 167
106 104
112 NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR
SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COMPOSITION
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

ALUMINUM FRAMED WITH WOOD TOP CAP AND SS CABLE
SPACED SUCH THAT A 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH

MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS WITH 'WHITE' COLOR
EXTERIOR SASH (TYP.)

BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING PAINTED BENJAMIN

MOORE 'WHITE DOVE'

CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS WITH TAUPE
COLORED FINISH (TYP.)
ADU SUBFLR 0' - 9"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 RIGHT ELEVATION

14.e
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10' - 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14'
- 6 1/2"
0' - 6" 8' - 1" 1' - 2" 9' - 1" 1' - 2" 10' - 1" 4' - 5 1/2" 34' - 6 1/2"
LEVEL 2 PLATE
-1' - 2"
LEVEL 2 SUB-10' - 3"
FOUNDATION PLATE-11' - 5"

LOWEST ADJ GRADE
-20' - 0"
LEVEL 1 SUB
-19' - 6"

BOTTOM OF RET WALL
-29' - 9"
DOWNWARD PROJECTING WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS (TYP.)
D88
D130
59 57 58
3/4" / 1'-0"
3 1/2
"
/
1 '-0
"
D150
D139 D156
127 128 126
176 174 175
172 173 171
4' - 0" 6' - 3"

NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR
SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COMPOSITION
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

ALUMINUM FRAMED WITH WOOD TOP CAP AND SS CABLE
SPACED SUCH THAT A 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH

MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS WITH 'WHITE' COLOR
EXTERIOR SASH (TYP.)

CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS WITH TAUPE
COLORED FINISH (TYP.)
ADU SUBFLR 0'
- 9"
189
LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
GARAGE SLAB 9' - 7"
GARAGE PLATE 17'
- 8"
GARAGE TOP OF ROOF 19' - 9"
0' - 9" 8' - 10" 8' - 1" 2' - 1"
19' - 0"
DOWNWARD PROJECTING WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS (TYP.)
2 "
/
1 '-
0 "

NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR
SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COMPOSITION
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN 'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

ALUMINUM FRAMED WITH WOOD TOP CAP AND SS CABLE
SPACED SUCH THAT A 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH

CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS WITH TAUPE
COLORED FINISH (TYP.)
3/4" / 1'-0"

CONCRETE STAIR TREADS
ADU SUBFLR 0'
- 9"
16' - 0"
189
190

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 REAR ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 GARAGE REAR ELEVATION

14.e
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10'
- 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14'
- 6 1/2"
LEVEL 2 PLATE
-1' - 2"
LEVEL 2 SUB
-10' - 3"
GARAGE SLAB 9' - 7"
GARAGE PLATE 17'
- 8"
GARAGE TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 9"
FOUNDATION PLATE-11' - 5"

LOWEST ADJ GRADE
-20' - 0"
34' - 6 1/2"
4' - 5 1/2" 10' - 1" 1' - 2" 9' - 1" 1' - 2" 8' - 7"
19' - 0"
2' - 1" 8' - 1" 8' - 10" 0' - 9"
LEVEL 1 SUB
-19' - 6"
67 66 68
85 63 65 64
70 69 71
82 83 84
2 1/4"
/ 1'
-0"
2 1/4"
/ 1'
-0"
2"
/
1 '
-
0"
2 "
/
1 '-
0 "
90 89
170 169 135
138 140 139

NATURAL WEATHERED WESTERN RED CEDAR
SHINGLE SIDING (TYP.)

GAF TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW

COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING IN
'CHARCOAL' COLOR (TYP.)

MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS WITH 'WHITE' COLOR
EXTERIOR SASH (TYP.)

BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING PAINTED BENJAMIN

MOORE 'WHITE DOVE'

CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS WITH TAUPE
COLORED FINISH (TYP.)
ADU SUBFLR 0' - 9"
188
187

GARAGE NEAREST ADJACENT GRADE
16' - 0"
D159
HOUSING FOR (N) 200 AMP ELEC METER AND

MAIN SERVICE PANEL

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LEFT ELEVATION

14.e
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10' - 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14'
- 6 1/2"
2 A3.7
4' - 5 1/2" 10' - 1" 1' - 2" 9' - 1" 1' - 2" 8' - 1" 0' - 6" LEVEL 2 PLATE-1' - 2"
LEVEL 2 SUB-10' - 3"
GARAGE SLAB 9'
- 7"

PROPERTY LINE
42' - 10" 10' - 7 1/2"
GARAGE PLATE 17'
- 8"
GARAGE TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 9"

FOUNDATION PLATE
-11' - 5"
1 A3.7
LOWEST ADJ GRADE-20' - 0"
34' - 6 1/2"
2' - 1" 8' - 1" 9' - 7"
19' - 9"
LEVEL 1 SUB-19' - 6"
234' - 1"
224' - 0"
213' - 9"
204' - 6"
LIVING ROOM 1/2 BATH BEDROOM 1

WALK-IN
CLOSET
ADU
GARAGE

MASTER LAUNDRY

BEDROOM
BATH 2

BONUS ROOM

CRAWL SPACE

COVERED
ENTRY
7' - 10"
2 "
/
1 '-
0 "
8' - 1"
ADU SUBFLR 0'
- 9"
3' - 0" 16' - 0"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

LONGITUDINAL

SECTION
3/16" = 1'-0"
2 LONGITUDINAL SECTION

14.e
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10'
- 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14'
- 6 1/2"
LEVEL 2 PLATE
-1' - 2"
LEVEL 2 SUB
-10' - 3"

FOUNDATION PLATE
-11' - 5"
1 A3.7

LOWEST ADJ GRADE
-20' - 0"
LEVEL 1 SUB
-19' - 6"
7' - 2"
8' - 1"
3' - 3 1/2"
0' - 6" 8' - 1" 1' - 2" 9' - 1" 1' - 2" 10' - 1" 4' - 5 1/2" BATH 3

CRAWL SPACE
STAIRS
RISERS @

TREAD DEPTH
16 0' - 7 3/4"
0' - 10"
LINEN
HALL

DINING ENTRY

COVERED
ENTRY
ADU SUBFLR 0' - 9"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

LONGITUDINAL
SECTION @

STAIRWELL
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION @ STAIRS

14.e
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)) LEVEL 3 SUB 0'
- 0"
LEVEL 3 PLATE 10'
- 1"
TOP OF ROOF 14'
- 6 1/2"
2 A3.5
LEVEL 2 PLATE
-1' - 2"
LEVEL 2 SUB
-10' - 3"

FOUNDATION PLATE
-11' - 5"
4' - 5 1/2" 10' - 1" 1' - 2" 9' - 1" 1' - 2" 8' - 1"
34' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 1 SUB
-19' - 6"
1 A3.6
1/2 ALCOVE DINING
BATH
BATH 1
MASTER
BATH

WALK-IN
CLOSET
HALL BEDROOM 3

CRAWL SPACE
ADU SUBFLR 0' - 9"
LEVEL 3 SUB 0' - 0"
2 A3.5
GARAGE SLAB 9'
- 7"
GARAGE PLATE 17'
- 8"
GARAGE TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 9"
2' - 1" 8' - 1" 9' - 7"
19' - 9"
1 A3.6
(E)
G
RAD
E
GARAGE
ADU
ADU SUBFLR 0'
- 9"

SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:

REV DATE DESCRIPTION

TRANSVERSE

SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 TRANSVERSE SECTION @ HOUSE
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 TRANSVERSE SECTION @ GARAGE

14.e
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment E Project Plans 2022-0110 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030))

14.f
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Attachment F Appeal Form and Letter [Revision 1] (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN

14.f
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Attachment F Appeal Form and Letter [Revision 1] (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN

14.g
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.g
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment G Geotechnical Report Jan. 2021 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-

14.h
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: Attachment H Proposed Revised Drainage Plan (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission GEOFORENSICS INC. Consulting Soil Engineering
303 Vintage Park Drive #220, Foster City, CA 94404 Phone: (650) 349-3369 Fax: (650) 571-1878 File: 220285
February 28, 2022
Roundhouse Industries
900 Rosita Road
Pacifica, CA 94044
Attention: Mike O’Connell
Subject: Olympian Way Lot
Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way
Pacifica, California

REVIEW OF DRAINAGE PLANS
Mr. O’Connell:

This letter has been prepared to document that we have reviewed the civil drainage plans prepared for the construction of the new residence proposed for the site.

Plans Reviewed
The civil drainage plans were prepared by Roundhouse Industries, and are dated 9/21/21. These plans are identified as sheets C1.1, C2.1, and C3.1.

Plan Review Comments
We have reviewed the above-listed plans for their conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and parameters provided in our report (dated 1/17/21), and good geotechnical engineering practice. Based upon our review, we find that these plans appear to have been prepared in substantial conformance with the intents of the recommendations within our report and good geotechnical engineering practice. Therefore, these plans may be submitted to the building department without further review by our office.

The retaining back drains are not depicted on the plans, as they are to be addressed under a separate permit. We recommend that where possible that the back of wall drains be discharged through weep holes in the walls so that any collected waters are dispersed across the hillside for disposal. Drainage of these perforated collectors should not be connected to the detention system if feasible.

Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted;
GeoForensics, Inc.

Daniel F. Dyckman, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2145 email cc: 1 to addressee

14.i
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment I Geotechnical Review Feb. 2022 (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037- 1 Murdock, Christian
From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:45 AM
To: Murdock, Christian
Cc:

Subject: Olympian Way
[CAUTION: External Email]
Kathlena Gust
Essex Way
Pacifica, Ca
94044
To the City of Pacifica:

Re: AP#023-037-030. Property address between 131-155 Olympian Way.

Dear Sirs,
I am the owner of the property at Essex Way and I have some concerns I would like to address regarding the property project listed above. As the owner of the property downhill from the project, I am at the most risk to suffer the consequences of this project.

1. The proposed construction is on a very steep lot. 38%. This creates concerns with drainage.

The house and hardscape take up most of the property. There is very little undeveloped property. This means the water from whole development will flow to the bottom of the lot where the Civil plans call for one dissipator and one bubble up. Has calculations been submitted and how much water that system produces and how much water the dissipation system dissipates without send adding water downhill toward my property. Is the Engineer on record a certified Civil Engineer? Has Public Works reviewed the drainage? If not, shouldn’t they? We may want to have our own Civil Engineer review the plans. If so that should be done before planning approvals.

2. I am also concerned with the cut and fill on this project and the destabilization on a steep hillside. How much soil being exported? What is the height of the largest cut?

3. I have concerns given the steepness of the property of materials sluffing downhill. What protections will be in place during construction. Would all excavation and foundation work be completed during the dry months. Is any shoring required? Is there a shoring Engineer?

4. Planning conditions. Sets back on the side is 3 ft. Setback in the rear is 20 ft. (I think). Total height of the building is 34ft. Lot coverage is most of the lot. Does that meet all the planning conditions? No variance? Is there a square footage to lot ratio that is permitted? Does the steepness of the lot affect that ratio?

5. Why wasn’t the house pushed back to the garage to create more rear undeveloped land that could be used for drainage? It would also lessen the impact on my property.

14.j
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD 2 6. The rear elevation of the house in very vertical. A better plan that would look less blocky, would have had the house stepped back following the slope. Did planning ever suggest that? There is a lot at stake to adjacent home owners. Homes that have been on Pedro Point for many years came to be in jeopardy due to under engineering or because of overbuilt sites. I truly believe that a second engineer representing the surrounding home owners should be hired to evaluate and confirm the findings of this project’s engineer prior to any approval.

I would be happy to meet with any of the commissioners, at my property, to view the project from a downhill perspective.

I am concerned how the finished project could adversely affect my home. A one week notice during these difficult times is just not enough to respond adequately on this project.

Sincerely,
Kathlena Gust
Essex Way
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.j
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD 1 Murdock, Christian
From: John Handley
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:02 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Wehrmeister, Tina; Pacifica Permit Tech Subject: Comments and Suggested Changes for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018
[CAUTION: External Email]

To the City of Pacifica:

Re: AP#023-037-030.

Property between 131-155 Olympian Way.

Dear Sirs:

I am the owner of the property at Essex Way which is downhill from the proposed new structures.

We already have a major runoff issue on Essex properties, and I do not see a sufficient proposed plan that would allow for water dissipation without causing the down hill properties incremental water problems.

The proposed structures consume the vast majority of the lot, leaving very little open land (does this truly conform to our Pacifica Code?). This would seem to be a code issue unless a variance is sought.

The design while interesting does not appear to lend itself environmentally to the steep topography.

The plan does not seem to have any considerations for the properties just below on Essex, that will be forced to deal the water issues. Has our City Engineer or a third party engineer reviewed this proposal? I am a layman in these matters, but this seems to be over-built and under engineered for the lot in question.

Thank you for your consideration,
John Handley
Essex Way
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.j
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ila Homsher
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 09:37:55 AM PST
Subject: Re: FILE NO.2021-018 Olympian Way APN 023-037-030 PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Department
City of Pacifica
Planning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2022
Public Comments: FILE NO. 2021-018 Olympian Way
Project Planner: Christian Murdock
Our property at Olympian Way is located next to this proposed development. We reviewed the Site Plan and the Drainage and Soils report and have questions about this development. We are asking for a response to our questions listed below. We want to ensure access issues, lot coverage and height, and drainage are addressed before a final approval.

1. Potential encroachment across Public Right-Of-Way, and access to side yard of our property: Our driveway like others on Olympian Way is built across the Public Right-of-Way before it reaches our property line. This new development will be in the same situation. In the Site Plan drawing entry into this development appears to cross the Public Right-of-Way in front of our property and then onto the new development. If this is allowed it would effectively cut off access to our side yard and create potential impacts for fire, safety, and building and yard maintenance of our property.

We are asking that the Site Plan be modified and the City approval is conditioned that the 5 foot setback be respected for the Right-of-Way adjacent to our property and driveway before the retaining wall and driveway are constructed.

I met Mike O'Connell and Mike Panasi on January 12, 2022 when they were visiting the site and brought this to their attention. They said this was not their intention to encroach into the 5 foot setback either in the Right-of-Way or at the property line. I request that changes be made to the current driveway and retaining wall design before this development is approved so we do not have a disagreement later.

2. Development Size: Please clarify the City Code for height limits. What is the total height of this development from lowest grade point to top of the garage? Does this meet the City Code? Also what is the City Code for lot coverage? With the extensive amount of retaining walls, buildings, and driveway does this project exceed allowable lot coverage?

14.j
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD

3. Drainage Plan & Discharge: We are very concerned about the drainage. The Storm Drainage Report states a 36-inch pipe with a bubble up box will dissipate the runoff. In the GeoTechnical Investigation document prepared by GeoForensics on Page 13 they discuss the need for multiple discharge points for surface drain lines and they should discharge 15 feet away from the house preferably at the street.

Drainage onto the street is not feasible, because the project is located down slope from the street.

I request that the GeoForensics Engineer review the drainage plan and make recommendations to ensure that the project and adjacent properties have an effective Drainage system plan and drainage system installed.

The Engineering firm stated "care should be taken not to direct flow of water toward neighboring properties, this may require use of multiple discharge points".

Condition of Approval 16 from the Building Department says that the applicant shall incorporate all recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation for proposed new Residence at Between 131 and 151 Olympian Way. Prepared By GeoForensics, Inc.

We request that the Plan Review and Construction section of the GeoForensics Report: At a minimum, observations should include: footing excavations: pier drilling: installation of any drainage system (eg. footing, pool, retaining wall and surface) and final grading. That be written, verbatim, into the conditions of approval, not simply referenced as a Report, but spelled out as a condition of approval.

4. Location and drainage of retaining walls questions: Are retaining walls allowed to be built at the property line or do they have to be at least 5 feet from property line? The GeoForensics Report discussed drainage around retaining walls. Will the builder be required to provide drainage around retaining walls?

5. Clarify location: this property is located between 131 and 155 Olympian Way. Not sure where 151 Olympian the address used on the GeoTechnical Report is located.

We look forward to hearing a response to our questions from the City of Pacifica.

Ron and Ila Homsher
Olympian Way
Pacifica, CA 94044

14.j
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD 1 Murdock, Christian
From: William.Leo Leon
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Wehrmeister, Tina; Pacifica Permit Tech Subject: Comments and Suggested Changes for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018
[CAUTION: External Email]

January 17, 2022
Planning Commissioners
Planning Department
City Of Pacifica
Submitted Via Email 1-17-22

Comments and Suggested Changes for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018

Dear Planning Commissioners, We reviewed the Agenda Packet, Conditions of Approval, Coastal Act Policies contained therein, The Site Plan Drawings, and the Drainage and Soils report.

Comments and Suggested Changes:

Design Review LCLUP (Local Coastal Land Use Plan) Requirement: Hillside Development:
a. Excavation: Large amounts of cut and/fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental effect on the immediate and surrounding environment.

The proposed project has multiple retaining walls incorporated into the design. Retaining walls are prominent features along the sides and across the project. The Retaining walls are not retaining slope cuts, The walls appear to be freestanding, and will need to be backfilled to provide the yards and spaces being retained.

The amount of Cut and Fill is not listed on the Grading Plan, I could not find calculations listed anywhere. The amount of cut and fill should be calculated and made part of the Project File so a complete evaluation of potential impacts can be determined.

For example, the amount of cut and fill to be imported and exported needs to be known so that the number truck trips can be calculated. There is a potential for impacts on the local roads, pedestrian travel and vehicle access.

Olympian Way has no sidewalks and is very narrow. Pedestrian use is ongoing. There is a history of trucks becoming stuck. There is no truck or car turnaround on Olympian Way. There is no outlet on Olympian Way.

A careful examination of Truck Trips for cut and fill needs to be conducted, and a traffic plan or study completed to determine the operational and safety requirements for both the Project and local pedestrian and Vehicle use.

14.j
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD 2 Add Traffic Study: Determine Truck Trips and make recommendations for Project, Pedestrian & Vehicle Safety and Project Operations.

b. Geologic Map Review: The site is mapped within an area where there has been a historic occurrence of landslide movement and topologic, local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions would indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement. Requiring mitigation be required (Geotech Investigation p2)

Comments and Suggested Changes for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018

We request that the Plan Review and Construction section of the GeoForensics Report be written, verbatim, into the conditions of approval, not simply referenced as a Report, but spelled out as a condition of approval:

Add to Condition 16: "At a minimum, observations should include: footing excavations: pier drilling: installation of any drainage system (eg. footing, pool, retaining wall and surface) and final grading."

Condition 22 f. (page A-4) The Public Works Department, has asked for an engineering Peer Review of all Retaining Structures or Systems work done in the Public Right of Way. Therefore, we think it is reasonable and request the following change to condition 22 f :

Add to change Condition22 f. Peer Review, for Retaining Structures and Systems located in the Public Right of Way and within the entire Project.

c. Potential encroachment across Public Right-Of-Way, side yard access: It appears, looking at the Site Plan drawing, The proposed Driveway and walls of the new development, enter and eliminate access from the Public Right-of-Way to the side property of 131 Olympian Way.

This requires additional review, so as not to cut off access the side yard. There is potential impacts for fire, safety, and building and yard maintenance of property.

The Site Plan should be reviewed and if needed modified, so as not to cut off access to adjoining property or structures.

Add a Condition: Plans will be reviewed to ensure existing setback and access be maintained through the Right-of-Way adjacent to any adjoining property or structures.

Comments and Changes for CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018

d. Drainage Plan & Discharge: The Storm Drainage Report states a 36-inch pipe with a bubble up box will dissipate the runoff. In the GeoTechnical Investigation document prepared by GeoForensics Page 13

The Engineering firm stated "care should be taken not to direct flow of water toward neighboring properties, this may require use of multiple discharge points".

They discuss the need for multiple discharge points for surface drain lines and they should discharge 15 feet away from the house preferably at the street.

14.j
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD 3 Drainage onto the street is not feasible, because the project is located down slope from the street. I am very concerned about the drainage.

Comments and Suggested Changes for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018 Add Condition: GeoForensics Engineer review the drainage plan and make recommendations to ensure that the project and adjacent properties have an effective Drainage system plan and drainage system installed.

Comments and Suggested Changes for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018

We appreciate your reading and considering our comments, and requests for changes and additional Conditions of Approval. We hope that the additional measures will make the project safer, and eliminate any potential issues or impacts with local traffic, road conditions and Project Operations.

Respectfully,

Leo & Kris

Leo Leon & Kris Geiger
Olympian Way
Pacifica, CA 94044

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.j
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Marcia Settel
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 5:43 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Pacifica Permit Tech; Wehrmeister, Tina Subject: Commission Hearing CDP-430-21-File 2021-018
[CAUTION: External Email]

January 17, 2022
Planning Commissioners
Planning Department
City Of Pacifica
Submitted Via Email 1-17-22

Comments for Planning Commission Hearing CDP-430-21 – File No. 2021 -018 Dear Commissioners
I wish to echo the concerns raised by my neighbors on Olympian Way regarding this project.

Although I am not directly affected by the final project, I have lived on the street for over 35 years and I have seen the problems that can occur with new development on the street.

My home was originally built in the 1940's, prior to incorporation or any land use requirements. That included any consideration of the impact of hillside construction on any other properties. We now know that insufficient drainage can and does cause damage to homes and infrastructure. There is a canyon running through the empty lot next to my home because of the lack of adequate drainage from the uphill properties.I thus urge the Commission to take the necessary steps to require that this project do more than just meet the barest minimum of drainage requirements and instead, meet the specifications recommended in the GeoForensics Report.

I also want to take this opportunity to urge the builders to be cognisant of the limitations of building on a narrow dead end street. Over the years, I have spent hours hemmed in by construction vehicles. I don't know what can be done to mitigate the problem, but I ask you to take any proactive steps to reduce the disruption that will occur.

Marcia Settel
Olympian Way

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

14.j
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment J Public Comments Recieved Prior to Planning Commission (4917 : Appeal of Planning Commission Action on TBD

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Fiscal Year 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the adjustments to the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
650-738-7301
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Finance staff has completed a Midyear Budget review and is proposing adjustments to the FY2021-22 Adopted Budget.

The purpose of the midyear budget review is to analyze the year-to-date revenues and expenditures, to review assumptions made before the budget cycle and make necessary adjustments to reflect changes in the City’s financial conditions. Typically, the midyear budget review is also a segue to the next fiscal year’s budget development process, as the mid-year analysis is used to develop the base budget assumptions for the new year.

On June 28, 2021, the City Council adopted a balanced FY 2021-22 Budget that reflected the Council priorities and uses of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the upcoming fiscal year. The Budget was subsequently amended and adopted by the City Council on September 27, 2021, to include the outcomes of the labor negotiations with all employee groups and capture the impacts of the new MOUs with offsetting reductions in Operating budget.

BACKGROUND:

This FY 2021-22 Midyear Budget report will focus on the following key objectives:

1. Updating City Council on the status of revenues and expenditures within the FY2021-22 General Fund Revised Budget and requesting total revenue adjustment to the FY2021-22 General Fund of $2.3 million and appropriation increase of $0.6 million, including a net of $181,335 previously approved by Council throughout the year, as presented in Attachment 2.
15 Packet Pg. 406
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022

2. Updating City Council on the status of revenues and expenditures within the FY 2021-22 Non-General Fund Revised Budget and requesting increase to the FY2021-22 nongeneral (Other) Funds Revenues totaling $1.7 million or 4% of the Total Other Funds Adopted Budget (Attachment 3). The Other Funds Expenditures adjustments total $2.9 million or 3% (Attachment 4), most of which were the result of the CIP projects rollover previously approved by the Council and $0.5 million previously approved by Council throughout the year (Attachment 2).

3. Updating Council on the projected fund balance structure through June 30, 2022 (Attachment 5).

The FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget was adopted as a balanced budget, meaning that the City’s operating expenditures did not exceed operating revenues. The reported structural deficit was addressed at budget adoption by a number of budget reduction measures that the Council approved as part of the FY2021-22 Budget, including using ARPA funds to replenish some of the COVID-related revenue losses.

The FY 2021-22 Revised General Fund budget is $43.1 million in revenue and $43 million in total General Fund expenditures.

City-wide revenues across all funds are projected to increase by $3.9 million, and citywide expenditures are projected to increase by $2.9 million primarily due to spending and delivery on CIP projects previously approved by Council in prior years.

1. Status of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures in FY 2021-22 Revised Budget FY 2021-22 General Fund Revenues
The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for most day-today activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, public safety, parks, beaches and recreation, public works, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include, but are not limited to, property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax (TOT), business tax registration, and current fees and charges for services.

The revised estimates for General Fund revenues (excluding transfers) are projected to be $43.1 million or $2.3 million (6%) higher than the Adopted Budget of $40.8 million mainly due to the City’s receipt of reimbursements and one-time revenues related to Vehicle License Fees backfill from the State and slightly higher than budgeted ARPA allocation. Without these onetime sources the regular General Fund revenues are right on target performing within 1% of the original budget.

The following table demonstrates General Fund revenues for the FY 2020-21 Actual, FY2021- 22 Adopted, and Revised FY 2021-22 budget projections.
15 Packet Pg. 407
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
Description FY 2020-21
Actual
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget
(amended as
9/27/2021)
FY 2021-22
Revised
Budget
$ Change
Revised over
Adopted
% Change
Revised
over
Adopted
Taxes $ 27,255,209 $ 26,501,531 $ 27,519,081 $ 1,017,550 4% Property Tax $ 15,131,117 $ 14,273,769 14,273,769 - -
Vehicle License Fees $ 2,643,981 $ 2,658,130 3,688,130 1,030,000 39% Business License Tax $ 444,171 $ 492,750 492,750 - -
Cannabis Tax $ 775,261 $ 910,295 795,595 (114,700) -13% Sales Tax $ 2,848,681 $ 2,860,153 3,017,753 157,600 6%
Transient Occupancy Tax $ 1,531,550 $ 1,750,423 1,695,073 (55,350) -3% Utility Users Tax $ 2,146,229 $ 1,868,218 1,868,218 - - Other Taxes $ 1,734,220 $ 1,687,793 1,687,793 - -
Intergovernmental $ 1,580,837 $ 4,963,718 6,125,018 1,161,300 23% Other Revenue $ 737,600 $ 88,000 88,000 - -
Charges for Services $ 5,370,569 $ 7,131,917 7,210,245 78,328 1% Sub-total $ 34,944,216 $ 38,685,166 $ 40,942,344 2,257,178 6% Transfers In $ 1,476,707 $ 2,150,898 $ 2,150,898 - -
Total $ 36,420,923 $ 40,836,064 $ 43,093,242 $ 2,257,178 6% FY 2021-22 General Fund Revenues Adjustments for Council Approval The following revenues are projected to reflect material changes over the FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget and are recommended for budget adjustment:
• Vehicle License Fee was converted to a property tax source by state legislation and grows as property tax grows in the City. The County of San Mateo remits the VLF related property tax twice a year in equal amounts. At the budget adoption, staff anticipated a delay in remittance of these revenues reflecting the impact of the State’s obligation to backfill VLF In Lieu revenues currently owed and forecasted. In the past, the State has backfilled any VLF shortfall, however, the State’s payment lags two years behind the shortfall year. Based on the most recent information provided by the County, the FY 2021-22 VLF allocation to Pacifica is $3.7 million, which includes a FY2021-22 shortfall adjustment, resulting in additional $1.03 million in one-time revenue backfill. • Cannabis Tax show a decrease of $114,700 or 13%, due to slower than anticipated business activities and delayed opening of two new dispensaries. Staff will continue monitoring these revenues to include accurate projections for the upcoming budget. • Sales Tax is the City’s second-largest revenue source. Based on discussions with HdL, the City’s sales tax advisor, the local sales tax activities forecast an increase of $157,600 or 6% over the Adopted budget due to gradual recovery of the local economy and increase in the State/County pool allocation for online sales. • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The hospitality industry was affected the most by the pandemic. National and international tourism took the hardest hit, which negatively impacted the City’s hotel occupancy and TOT revenues. Although this was anticipated in budget assumptions, the FY 2021-22 Revised Budget projects an additional $55,400 or 3% decline over the Adopted Budget due to a slower than expected recovery in travel and tourism activities further hampered by the Omicron variant. • Intergovernmental revenue category includes general grants and reimbursements and projects an additional $1.2 million. It is important to note that the majority of these revenues are one-time. This includes additional allocation for American Rescue Plan Act of $0.4 million, cost reimbursement from Cal OES for Fire wildfire services, additional COVID-related grants that the City received earlier this year and reimbursements for increased senior lunch program activities with the corresponding increase in food cost accounted for on the expense side.
15 Packet Pg. 408
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
• Charges for Services project a marginal increase of $78,300 or 1% due to an increase in reimbursable Planning Department pass-through legal fees on private development further described below, and anticipated increase in preschool / childcare funding and some recreation activities like swimming programs with offsetting decreases in others (day camp and senior programs) that were overstated in the budget.

FY 2021-22 General Fund Expenditures
FY 2021-22 General Fund Operating Expenditures Adjustments for Council Approval Expenditure projections were reviewed based on three categories: personnel costs and general government program budget in contract services, and materials & supply categories as listed below.

Expenditures FY 2020-21
Actual
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22
Revised
Budget
$ Change
Revised over
Adopted
% Change
Revised
over
Adopted
Salaries & Benefits $ 25,098,441 $ 28,138,921 28,705,984 567,063 2% Contract Services $ 5,982,005 $ 6,893,746 7,828,046 934,300 14% Material/Supplies/Maintenance $ 3,264,977 $ 3,134,698 3,248,698 114,000 4% Salary Savings $ - $ - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) -
Sub-Total 34,345,424 38,167,365 38,782,728 615,363 2%
Transfers/Allocations Out $ 1,861,270 $ 4,219,481 4,219,481 - 0% Total 36,206,694 42,386,846 43,002,209 615,363 1%
General Fund Expenditures
Previously Approved Changes to the FY 2021-22 Budget
At every Council meeting, the City Manager recommends agenda items for the Council’s consideration and approval. Some of these items require amendments to the original budget, and Council approval of the agenda item specifically includes the budget amendment. During the mid-year budget review process, Finance staff incorporated all previously approved budget amendments year-to-date into the FY 2021-22 Revised Budget. These adjustments increased the General Fund appropriation by $351,863, as further described in Attachment 2.

Staff Adjustments to Budget
During the mid-year budget review process, staff makes a number of minor cleanup changes and adjustments within the department’s budgets. Money is moved from various individual lineitems with savings to other line items within a department budget. This is done when a line item may go over its original budget amount. These changes are considered routine as they have minimal effects on the overall budget and remain within the FY 2021-22 Council approved funding level.

Staff used the following methodology for the mid-year budget analysis: the year-end estimates in operating expenditures in excess of the adopted budget by 5% and $25,000 were considered material in nature and are being proposed for a budget adjustment.

Throughout this exercise, staff identified a number of items that would require an additional budget appropriation of $1.6 million (before salary savings), as listed below:

Salaries and Benefits
• Additional Fire Overtime Cost of nearly $0.5 million reimbursable by California Office of Emergency Services (OES) under the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) and Rescue Mutual Aid System related to wildland fire protection and relief from wildfire. This 15 Packet Pg. 409
Pacifica City Council 5
March 14, 2022
cost was not budgeted due to the unpredictable nature of the service, but staff is including this in the mid-year budget adjustment with the corresponding reimbursement recorded in the Intergovernmental revenues as referenced above. • Reclass of the Finance Manager to a Deputy Finance Director position request. The Finance Manager position became vacant in December, 2021 due to a retirement. The City has conducted two unsuccessful recruitments trying to fill this position. Several Bay Area Cities ran similar recruitments at the same time with more competitive salary and benefits packages. The City Manager recommends upgrading this position to a Deputy Director classification to attract a better qualified pool of candidates. The FY2021-22 Budget impact for this reclass will be immaterial, as the recruitment is not expected to be complete with the new hire on board until June or July, but staff is requesting this upgrade as a matter of position control in preparation for the FY 22-23 Budget, so the recruitment can begin and be completed by the beginning of the new fiscal year. If approved, the fully burdened cost of the reclass of approximately $15,000 will be included in the FY2022-23 Budget.

Contract Services
• Legal Services need an additional increase of $220,000 to a total estimated FY 2021-22 cost of nearly $1.15 million to address the increase in City Attorney and outside legal counsel cost related to various legal matters, including litigations, claims and Public Records Act request processing. An additional $173,200 is also added to costreimbursable legal services in the Planning Department as pass-through charges on private development.
• Contractual Services in City Manager’s Department budget of an additional $60,000 to cover various unanticipated projects, including a purchase of the NextRequest software for Public Records requests and an upcoming six-month pilot contract with California Consulting for citywide grant writing services.
• Additional Part-time and contractual funding of $132,600 for substitute childcare teachers and janitorial services increase at PB&R and Childcare programs. • Contractual Services in the Public Works department need to be amended by $123,000 to cover engineering services and analysis that cannot be performed in-house.

Material, Supplies and Maintenance Services
• Food and Supplies Budget in PB&R department of $74,000 to cover the cost and increase in number of meals served for senior lunches with the offsetting additional reimbursements factored-in the estimated revenue increase above. • Planning Department budget requires additional allocation of $40,000 for services related to compliance with state affordable housing requirements per Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA reporting). The first year cost of ADU compliance software is also included in this category.

Personnel Cost
Personnel cost projections are based on the most current payroll cost and projected for the remainder of the fiscal year after factoring in expected personnel changes. The City has been confronted by an unusually high vacancy rate and challenges in recruiting and retaining talent, challenges which are currently widespread in the local government sector, and exacerbated for Pacifica by its lower than median salaries. Some recruitments have had to be repeated multiple times without success. Because of this trend, staff is projecting substantial salary savings of approximately $1.4 million created by vacancies and new employees coming in at a lower salary step than the incumbents.

Typically, staff would not recommend reducing the personnel budget due to salary savings, as 15 Packet Pg. 410
Pacifica City Council 6
March 14, 2022
this could be a misleading representation of fully-staffed personnel cost. Plus, salary savings may help offset any unexpected increases before the end of the year, while any unused savings would revert back to the General Fund balance. However, considering the projected upcoming structural deficit in the upcoming year and vulnerability of the General Fund unassigned fund balance reserves, the City Manager recommends making a one-time adjustment to factor-in salary savings of $1 million in the FY2021-22 Revised Budget to help offset the increased cost of the contract services and material & supply categories and replenish the General Fund projected reserves in preparation for the new budget cycle. This one-time reduction in the salary and benefits will be restored back in the FY2022-23 Base Budget with the full personnel cost.

Overall, FY 2021-22 General Fund operating expenditures are amended to net $0.6 million or 1%, which includes an operating increase of $1.6 million, including $0.4 million of previously approved Council adjustments throughout the year (Attachment 2) and $1.2 million requested adjustment as described above, as well as offsetting salary savings of $1 million.

2. Status of Non-General Fund Revenues and Expenditures in FY 2021-22 Revised Budget
Non-General Funds include the following categories.
• Enterprise Funds, including Sewer Operating and Capital and Beach Parking funds • Special Revenue and Capital Funds, including Gas Tax and Street funds, Drainage, General Capital, Housing and Park in lieu funds, PB&R Roy Davies Trust fund, Disaster Accounting and others.
• Internal Service Funds, including Motor Pool Operating and Replacement funds, Dental Benefit fund and Risk Management (Workers’ Comp and General Liability) funds. • Debt Service Fund
Non-General Fund FY 2021-22 Revenues
In the Adopted FY 2021-22 Budget, these revenues comprise $45 million or 52.4% of the City’s $85.8 million total revenue budget. The non-general fund revenues are projected to increase by nearly $1.7 million or 4% to $46.6 as listed in Attachment 3 and proposed mid-year adjustments as listed below.

Non-General Fund Revenues Adjustments for Council Approval The following non-General Fund revenues are projected to reflect material changes over the FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget and recommended for budget adjustment:

Enterprise Funds:
• Sewer Operating and Capital Fund projects $1.3 million in additional revenues due to increase in sewer connection charges and higher water usage during the 2020 period which resulted in undervalued projections during development of the FY 2021-22 Fiscal Year budget.
• Beach Parking Fund revenues are expected to go up by $100,000 from $565,000 to $665,000 as a result of higher recreational usage of outdoor space.

Special Revenue and Capital Funds:
• Street Construction Fund shows a reduction in revenues of $0.9 million or 28% per staff request to remove the Sharp Park ADA Resurfacing project from the CIP list. The project was planned to be funded by a grant submitted through Congresswoman Jackie Spier’s office and staff earmarked $1 million award during last year’s budget preparation. The City did not receive the grant and staff recommends removing this project from the CIP, which includes removing the corresponding expenditures of $1.2 million budgeted for the project. This reduction is partially offset by an increase in Measure A revenues. • Gas Tax Fund revenues are projected to increase by $38,100 or 2% compared to the 15 Packet Pg. 411
Pacifica City Council 7
March 14, 2022
budgeted estimates.
• Park In-Lieu Fund is projected to receive additional $41,200 above the $50,000 estimated during the budget development due to higher activity and park in-lieu fees paid by developers.
• Disaster Accounting Fund received an additional $0.9 million in Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) revenues. Staff budgeted Excess ERAF revenues at $2.5 million, divided between $88,000 in General Fund for assistance to local nonprofit organizations (Pacifica Resource Center and the Pacific Beach Coalition), $1.5 million in the General Capital Fund allocated towards the Civic Center project and the remainder of $0.9 was budgeted in the Disaster Recovery Fund. The current year’s Excess ERAF distribution was $3.5 million resulting in $0.9 million increase added to the Disaster Accounting Fund consistent with the past policy direction of the Council. • Motor Pool Replacement Fund received additional revenues of $40,100 as a result of the sale of surplus vehicles, including three commercial trucks and a Van.

Additional information on individual non-general fund revenue categories is presented in Attachment 5.

Non-General Fund FY 2021-22 Expenditures and Transfers
Non-General Fund FY 2021-22 Adopted expenditures comprise $55.2 million, or 56.5% of the City’s $97.6 million total expenditure budget. These expenditures are proposed to be amended by the net of $2.3 million or 4%, including previously approved by the City Council year-to-date and additional expenditures related to the rollover of capital projects from the prior years.

Non-General Fund Expenditure Appropriation Adjustments for Council Consideration Enterprise Funds:
• Sewer Fund shows nearly $0.45 million or 2% increase in expenditures due to higher gas, electric and water utility cost.

Special Revenue and Capital Funds:
• Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (SLES) Fund expenditure need to be adjusted up by $27,000 due to a Police Department’s purchase of equipment, including Body and Dashboard Cameras and required patrol car upgrades.
• Street Construction Fund projected increase in expenditures of $1.3 million is mainly due to Public Works staff catching up on the prior year’s projects approved and budgeted in previous years, while the current year’s CIP budget is also projected as spent before the end of the year for accurate accounting of the available fund balances in preparation for the new budget.
• PB&R Roy Davies Trust Fund also shows an additional expense of $39,400 over budget which is related to the completion of the Fitness Court CIP project budgeted in the previous years and delayed in execution.

Capital expenditures will be further reviewed by staff during the FY 2022-23 CIP Budget development process that is now being prepared by Public Works department.

3. Projected Fund Balance Structure
The FY 2021-22 revised budget amounts have been updated from the adopted budget figures following the independent audit of FY 2020-21. Under GASB 54, this balance is made up of the following components: non-spendable items or portions of fund balance that cannot be liquidated, restricted amounts for use by outside agencies, committed amounts by Council action such as emergency/contingency reserves and assigned balances to pay off unfunded liabilities and to fund infrastructure improvements.
15 Packet Pg. 412
Pacifica City Council 8
March 14, 2022
These restricted reserves and operating contingency are projected slightly under $10 million leaving an unassigned projected balance of $6.7 million, which equates to 16.7% of the General Fund operating expenditures (excluding one-time and capital transfers). This is an increase of nearly $1.6 or 3.8% from the Adopted Budget (adjusted by the beginning fund balance), which complies with the Government Finance Officers Association of the US and Canada (GFOA) recommendation for government entities of meeting at least two months of operating revenues or expenditures. Although a further increase in the General Fund unassigned fund balance would be desirable, this is certainly a move in the right direction that puts the City in a slightly better financial position to face difficult budget choices in the upcoming years.

Designations Actual
2020-21
Adopted
2021-22
(Amended
9/27/21)
Revised
2021-22
(Midyear)
Variance
Revised vs.

Adopted
Beginning Fund Balance $ 15,917,102 $ 16,501,373 $ 16,501,373 $ - Total Revenue* 36,445,882 40,836,064 43,093,242 2,257,178 Total Expenditures 35,861,611 42,386,846 43,002,209 615,363 Ending Fund Balance 16,501,373 14,950,591 16,592,406 1,641,815 Non-Spendable 3,983,270 4,600,986 4,600,986 $ -
Assigned Reserves
Policy Level of 10% of Expenditures 3,726,639 4,238,685 4,300,221 61,536 Facility Maintenance & Replacement * 10,000 205,000 205,000 0 Compensated Absences 200,000 200,000 200,000 0
Child Care Reserve* 169,908 488,591 488,591 0
Legal Reserves 100,000 100,000 100,000 0
Assigned Reserves 4,206,547 5,232,276 5,293,812 61,536
Total Designations 8,189,817 9,833,262 9,894,798 61,536 Unassigned Fund Balance 8,311,556 5,117,330 6,697,608 1,580,279 Operating Expenses 36,222,623 39,386,846 40,002,209 615,363 Unassigned Fund Balance as % of Op. Expenses 23% 13.0% 16.7% 3.8% FY2021-22 REVISED BUDGET

GENERAL FUND (ASSIGNED & UNASSIGNED BALANCES)
Although the impact of the mid-year budget review on the General Fund Revenues and Expenditures is mostly cost-neutral, the overall impact on the General Fund is positive. This results from a better than expected performance at the FY2020-21 year-end, which increased the unassigned Actual FY2020-21 General Fund balance of $8.3 million by approximately $2.3 million compared to the FY 2020-21 Projected figure of $6 million that was used for the Budget.

Another major contributing factor is prudent fiscal management by the City Council and demonstrated financial discipline by the City Manager and all City Departments in keeping their operations within the reduced budget means. Also, factoring-in the anticipated FY 2021-23 salary savings in the Revised budget will further replenish the General Fund reserves and increase the fund balance starting point in preparation for the new budget and City Council discussion of strategic goals and priorities for the upcoming budget cycle.

Should the Council approve the recommendations listed above, the estimated ending General Fund balance as of June 30, 2022, is projected to be approximately $16.6 million, which is higher than the FY2021-22 Adopted projected balance. Again, this is due to overall slightly better than expected performance coupled with budget reductions in FY 2020-21, and a number of prior year clean-up adjustments made during the year-end and audit process that resulted in the increase in audited FY 2020-21 ending General Fund balance by $2.3 million, plus the current mid-year adjustments, including the salary savings that (if approved) will further replenish the available General Fund balance. The FY2021-22 Revised unassigned General 15 Packet Pg. 413
Pacifica City Council 9
March 14, 2022
Fund Balance is projected at $6.7 million or 16.7% of the Operating expenditure which is a significant improvement from $3 million or 7.2% reported at Budget Adoption.

Staff will continue monitoring remaining fund balances and reevaluate strategies for future use of these funds as part of the FY2022-23 Budget. Please refer to the attached summary schedule presented in Attachment 5 for additional information on the City’s Revised FY 2021-22 projected fund balances across all funds.

The City of Pacifica prides itself on an open, inclusive, and comprehensive budget process. This process traditionally takes place over the course of several months and involves numerous Council study sessions in which the public is invited to participate. This begins with the City Council Goal Setting workshop, scheduled for March 25-26, 2022. Annual Goal Setting provides a critically important roadmap for the organization as it establishes the framework for the City’s short and long-term objectives and work plan for the upcoming year to be reflected in the budget.

The City Manager and staff look forward to working with the Council and community to address any current and potential financial challenges that may lay ahead. This work may include identifying operational opportunities and efficiencies, assessing appropriate tax and fee structure, pursuing acceptable economic development opportunities, and advising on alternative revenue options available to the City and the community to facilitate economic recovery and ensure the continuing high quality of life for the residents and visitors of the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council is being asked to adopt the resolution amending the FY2021-22 Budget. No alternative action is identified.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

A balanced and structurally sustainable budget is consistent with all of the City Council's goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As part of the FY 2021-22 mid-year review, the General Fund revenues are amended to $43.1 million, an increase of $2.3 million or 6%, and General Fund operating expenditures are amended to $43 million, an increase of $0.6 million or 1.4% over the Adopted FY 2021-22 budget. Staff recommends a total revenue increase of $1.7 million and appropriation adjustment of $2.3 million or 4% to other Non-General Funds primarily due to revenue increase in the Sewer fund additional Excess ERAF allocation, as well as increase in capital spending from the prior years.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget(DOCX)
Attachment 2 - FY 2021-22 City Council Previously Approved Budget Amendments (PDF) 15 Packet Pg. 414
Pacifica City Council 10 March 14, 2022
Attachment 3 - FY 2021-22 Summary of Revenues and Transfers by Fund (PDF) Attachment 4 - FY 2021-22 Summary of Expenditures and Transfers by Fund (PDF) Attachment 5 - FY 2021-22 Fund Balance Summary by Fund (PDF) 15 Packet Pg. 415
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget on June 28, 2021 and Amended on September 27, 2021; and WHEREAS, the recommended budget was a balanced expenditure plan that ensured the maintenance of adequate reserves during FY 2021-22; and WHEREAS, City Staff has completed a mid-year budget review to validate budget assumptions and conduct an analysis of the year-to-date revenues and expenditures; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Mid-Year Budget analysis and requested adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica now desires to adopt the 2021-22 Fiscal Year MidYear adjustments to the FY 2021-22 budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES:

The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the mid-year adjustments to the FY 2021-22 budget with the citywide revenues and appropriations as follows:

Fund Name Revenue
Adjustments
Appropriation
Adjustments
GENERAL FUND * . $ 2,257,178 $ 615,363

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
18/34 Sewer Operating/Capital $ 1,336,100 $ 448,900
35 Beach Parking Fund $ 100,000 $ -
Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,436,100 $ 448,900

SPECIAL EXPENSE FUNDS
07 SLES Fund $ - $ 27,000
09 Street Construction Fund $ (875,600) $ 1,356,209
10 Gas Tax Maintenance Fund* $ 38,100 $ -
12 Highway 1 Improvement Fund $ - $ -
14 Manor Drive Improvement Fund $ - $ -
15 Aircraft Noise Project $ - $ -
16 NPDES Stormwater Fund $ - $ -
Summary of FY2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments

15.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget (4925 : FY 2021-22 Mid-Year PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of March 2022.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon Sarah Coffey
City Attorney City Clerk
19 Planned Local Drainage Fund $ - $ 255,705
22 General Capital Improvement Fund $ - $ -
23 Frontierland Remediation $ - $ -
24 Housing In-Lieu Fund $ - $ -
25 Parking In-Lieu Fund $ - $ -
26 Park In-Lieu Capital Improvement $ 41,200 $ -
27 PB&R Roy Davies Trust $ - $ 39,400
28 PB&R Special Revenue Fund $ - $ -
31 Pacifica Library Fund $ - $ -
38 Disaster Accounting Fund $ 997,415 $ 163,673
Total Special Revenue & Capital Funds $ 201,115 $ 1,841,987

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
65 Self Funded Dental Plan $ - $ -
66 Self-Insurance Fund W/C $ - $ -
67 Self-Insurance Fund Liability $ - $ -
71 Motor Pool Operations Fund $ - $ -
72 Motor Pool Replacement Fund $ 40,100 $ -
Total Internal Service Funds $ 40,100 $ -

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
40 Debt Service Fund $ - $ -
Total Debt Service Funds $ - $ -
Total Other Funds $ 1,677,315 $ 2,290,887
Total All Funds $ 3,934,493 $ 2,906,250

15.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget (4925 : FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Action Item Date Department
Revenues Expenses Transfers Net
General Fund (01)
First Amendment to an Agreement with HdL to Provide Cannabis Business Inspection Services 8/9/2021 Police 54,700 54,700 Notice of Public Hearing for New or Increased Solid Waste Collection Services Fees and Charges and consulting agreement with HfH Consultants for review of the rate requests with Recology and implementation of SB 1383 organic recycling requirements
9/27/2021
11/22/2021 Public Works 20,000 20,000
Resolutions approving the MOU with PRC for development and implementation of a safe parking permit program and authorizing a temporary, full-time Community Services Officer position in the Police Department for unhoused liaison services and Oversized Vehicle Ordinance enforcement funded by ARPA. 11/8/2021 Police 127,163 127,163
Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts) for annual revenues of $13,960.
1/10/2022 PB&R (9,307) (9,307)
Resolution approving the Lease Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Paul and Amy Kukielka, dba Chit Chat Café for the Premises Located at 2100 Beach Boulevard 1/24/2022 PB&R (11,221) (11,221) Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program operations agreement with Pacifica Resource Center and approving funding for the program to provide assistance to the vehicularly housed and a mobile dumping station program. FY 2020-21 ARPA funds were allocated for this purpose, but ommitted in the Budget. This action corrects the oversight 2/24/2022 City Manager 150,000
$ (20,528) $ 351,863 $ - $ 181,335
Street Construction Fund (09)
FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project 1/24/2022 Public Works 189,009 189,009 $ 189,009 $ 189,009
Drainage Fund (19)
Consultant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Serra Drive Outfall Repair Project 8/9/2022 Public Works 55,835 55,835 Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers for 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan not to exceed $181,700.00 plus 10% contingency to a total budget authority of $199,870
8/23/2022 Public Works 199,870 199,870
$ - $ 255,705 $ - $ 255,705
General Capital Improvement Fund (22)
Transfer funds from Fire Station 72 Emergency Signal Replacement into Fire Station Deck Replacement 12/13/2021 Public Works (65,000) (65,000) Fire Station Deck Replacement Project Completion 12/13/2021 Public Works 65,000 65,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sewer Fund (34)
Approval of First Amendment with Bartle Wells Associates for the City of Pacifica Sewer Rate Study FY2022-2027 to a total budget authority of $72,000. 9/13/2022 Public Works 22,000 22,000 $ - $ 22,000 $ - $ 22,000
Disaster Accounting Fund (38)
Approve Change Order No. 1 to the construction contract with Northwest Demolition, Inc and authorize an additional budget authority of $54,173 from Disaster Accounting Fund 7/12/2022 Public Works (40,630) 54,173 13,543 $ (40,630) $ 54,173 $ - $ 13,543
$ (40,630) $ 520,887 $ - $ 480,257
Total All Funds: $ (61,158) $ 872,750 $ - $ 661,592
Total Drainage Fund:

Total Sewer Fund:

FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget
City Council Previously Approved Budget Amendments
Fiscal Impact
Total General Fund:

Total Street Constr. Fund
City of Pacifica
Attachment 2
Total General Capital Impr. Fund
Total Disaster Accounting Fund:

Total Non-General:

15.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2021-22 City Council Previously Approved Budget Amendments (4925 :

Fund Name FY 2020-21
Actual
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget
(amended as of
9/27/21)
Previously
Approved
Mid Year
Adjustments
Total
Mid Year
Adjustments
FY 2021-22
Revised Budget
%
Change
over
Adopted
$ 36,420,923 $ 40,836,064 $ 20,528 $ 2,236,650 $ 2,257,178 $ 43,093,242 6%

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
18/34 Sewer Operating/Capital $ 18,244,840 $ 17,539,087 $ - $ 1,336,100 $ 1,336,100 $ 18,875,187 8% 35 Beach Parking Fund $ 822,509 $ 565,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 665,000 18% Total Enterprise Funds $ 19,067,349 $ 18,104,087 $ - $ 1,436,100 $ 1,436,100 $ 19,540,187 8%

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
07 SLES Fund $ 157,405 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 - 09 Street Construction Fund $ 2,514,148 $ 3,081,200 $ - $ (875,600) $ (875,600) $ 2,205,600 -28% 10 Gas Tax Maintenance Fund* $ 1,553,230 $ 1,791,557 $ - $ 38,100 $ 38,100 $ 1,829,657 2% 12 Highway 1 Improvement Fund $ 155,295 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 - 14 Manor Drive Improvement Fund $ 9,423 $ 840,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 840,000 - 15 Aircraft Noise Project $ 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
16 NPDES Stormwater Fund $ 333,184 $ 248,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 248,000 - 19 Planned Local Drainage Fund $ 171,911 $ 477,560 $ - $ - $ - $ 477,560 - 22 General Capital Improvement Fund $ 1,264,619 $ 12,780,046 $ - $ - $ - $ 12,780,046 - 23 Frontierland Remediation $ 7,299 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 - 24 Housing In-Lieu Fund $ 646 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
25 Parking In-Lieu Fund $ 304 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
26 Park In-Lieu Capital Improvement $ 134,441 $ 50,000 $ - $ 41,200 $ 41,200 $ 91,200 82% 27 PB&R Roy Davies Trust $ 1,447 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
28 PB&R Special Revenue Fund $ (9,845) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - 31 Pacifica Library Fund $ 280 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 - 38 Disaster Accounting Fund $ 2,237,000 $ 961,000 $ 40,630 $ 956,785 $ 997,415 $ 1,958,415 104% Total Special Revenue & Capital Funds $ 8,530,787 $ 20,484,363 $ 40,630 $ 160,485 $ 201,115 $ 20,685,478 1%

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
65 Self Funded Dental Plan $ 235,212 $ 244,188 $ - $ - $ - $ 244,188 - 66 Self-Insurance Fund W/C $ 1,029,678 $ 1,358,700 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,358,700 67 Self-Insurance Fund Liability $ 154,552 $ 417,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 417,000 - 71 Motor Pool Operations Fund $ 966,871 $ 1,479,246 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,479,246 - 72 Motor Pool Replacement Fund $ 31,728 $ - $ - $ 40,100 $ 40,100 $ 40,100 - Total Internal Service Funds $ 2,418,040 $ 3,499,134 $ - $ 40,100 $ 40,100 $ 3,539,234 1%

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
40 Debt Service Fund $ 2,208,229 $ 2,902,855 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,902,855 - Total Debt Service Funds $ 2,208,229 $ 2,902,855 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,902,855 - Total Other Funds (non-General Fund) $ 32,224,405 $ 44,990,439 $ 40,630 $ 1,636,685 $ 1,677,315 $ 46,667,753 4% Total All Funds $ 68,645,327 $ 85,826,503 $ 61,158 $ 3,873,335 $ 3,934,493 $ 89,760,996 5% Attachment 3
GENERAL FUND * .

City of Pacifica
FY2021-22 Mid-Year Budget
Summary of Revenue & Transfers by Fund

15.c
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment 3 - FY 2021-22 Summary of Revenues and Transfers by Fund (4925 : FY 2021-22 Fund Name FY 2020-21
Actual
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget
Previously
Approved
Mid Year
Adjustments
Total
Mid Year
Adjustments
FY 2020-21
Revised
Budget
% Change
over
Adopted
GENERAL FUND * . $ 36,206,694 $ 42,386,846 $ 351,863 $ 263,500 $ 615,363 $ 43,002,209 1.45%

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
18/34 Sewer Operating/Capital $ 14,822,499 $ 25,434,600 $ 22,000 $ 426,900 $ 448,900 $ 25,883,500 2% 35 Beach Parking Fund $ 715,783 $ 636,553 $ - $ - $ - $ 636,553 - Total Enterprise Funds $ 15,538,282 $ 26,071,153 $ 22,000 $ 426,900 $ 448,900 $ 26,520,053 2%

SPECIAL EXPENSE FUNDS
07 SLES Fund $ 233,867 $ 100,000 $ - $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 127,000 27% 09 Street Construction Fund $ 2,832,932 $ 3,747,986 $ 189,009 $ 1,167,200 $ 1,356,209 $ 5,104,195 36% 10 Gas Tax Maintenance Fund* $ 1,622,610 $ 1,748,019 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,748,019 - 12 Highway 1 Improvement Fund $ 31,177 $ 29,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 29,000 - 14 Manor Drive Improvement Fund $ - $ 840,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 840,000 - 15 Aircraft Noise Project $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
16 NPDES Stormwater Fund $ 183,942 $ 225,856 $ - $ - $ - $ 225,856 - 19 Planned Local Drainage Fund $ 417,173 $ 412,000 $ 255,705 $ - $ 255,705 $ 667,705 62% 22 General Capital Improvement Fund $ 1,529,663 $ 13,247,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 13,247,000 - 23 Frontierland Remediation $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - 24 Housing In-Lieu Fund $ 22,249 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
25 Parking In-Lieu Fund $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 - 26 Park In-Lieu Capital Improvement $ 67,102 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 - 27 PB&R Roy Davies Trust $ 182,149 $ 995,200 $ - $ 39,400 $ 39,400 $ 1,034,600 4% 28 PB&R Special Revenue Fund $ 42,478 $ 64,370 $ - $ - $ - $ 64,370 - 31 Pacifica Library Fund $ 488 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 - 38 Disaster Accounting Fund $ 690,649 $ 343,000 $ 54,173 $ 109,500 $ 163,673 $ 506,673 48% Total Special Revenue & Capital Funds $ 7,906,479 $ 22,082,432 $ 498,887 $ 1,343,100 $ 1,841,987 $ 23,924,419 8%

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
65 Self Funded Dental Plan $ 187,055 $ 174,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 174,000 - 66 Self-Insurance Fund W/C $ 1,304,815 $ 1,377,906 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,377,906 - 67 Self-Insurance Fund Liability $ 241,955 $ 484,206 $ - $ - $ - $ 484,206 - 71 Motor Pool Operations Fund $ 998,418 $ 1,108,969 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,108,969 - 72 Motor Pool Replacement Fund $ 489,517 $ 982,800 $ - $ - $ - $ 982,800 - Total Internal Service Funds $ 3,221,760 $ 4,127,881 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,127,881 - DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $ -
40 Debt Service Fund $ 1,551,851 $ 2,902,855 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,902,855 - Total Debt Service Funds $ 1,551,851 $ 2,902,855 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,902,855 - Total Other Funds $ 28,218,372 $ 55,184,321 $ 520,887 $ 1,770,000 $ 2,290,887 $ 57,475,208 4% Total All Funds $ 64,425,065 $ 97,571,167 $ 872,750 $ 2,033,500 $ 2,906,250 $ 100,477,417 3% City of Pacifica
FY2021-22 Mid-Year Budget
Summary of Expenses & Transfers by Fund
* City Council authorized staff to use $2.5 million from the unrestricted fund balances of Parking, Vehicle & Equipment Replacement, Employee Benefit, and the MLK Funds to help balance the General Fund
Attachment 4 15.d
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FY 2021-22 Summary of Expenditures and Transfers by Fund (4925 : FY 2021- GENERAL FUND $ 16,502,848 $ 16,501,373 $ 43,093,242 $ 43,002,209 $ 91,033 $ 16,592,406

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
18/34 Sewer Operating/Capital 23,815,370 27,220,888 18,875,187 25,883,500 (7,008,313) 20,212,575 35 Beach Parking Fund 227,576 334,303 665,000 636,553 28,447 362,750 Total Enterprise Funds 24,042,946 $ 27,555,191 19,540,187 26,520,053 (6,979,866) $ 20,575,325

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
07 SLES Fund 312,858 236,396 100,000 127,000 (27,000) 209,396 09 Street Construction Fund 3,830,468 3,511,683 2,205,600 5,104,195 (2,898,595) 613,088 10 Gas Tax Maintenance Fund* (119,275) (188,655) 1,829,657 1,748,019 81,638 (107,017) 12 Highway 1 Improvement Fund 486,424 610,544 50,000 29,000 21,000 631,544 14 Manor Drive Improvement Fund 942,943 952,366 840,000 840,000 - 952,366 15 Aircraft Noise Project 410 411 - - - 411
16 NPDES Stormwater Fund 184,637 327,664 248,000 225,856 22,144 349,808 19 Planned Local Drainage Fund 420,309 175,046 477,560 667,705 (190,145) (15,099) 22 General Capital Improvement Fund 3,565,516 3,300,474 12,780,046 13,247,000 (466,954) 2,833,520 23 Frontierland Remediation 437,356 394,655 75,000 - 75,000 469,655 24 Housing In-Lieu Fund 264,826 243,223 - - - 243,223
25 Parking In-Lieu Fund 115,838 116,142 - 100,000 (100,000) 16,142 26 Park In-Lieu Capital Improvement 481,770 549,109 91,200 200,000 (108,800) 440,309 27 PB&R Roy Davies Trust 3,302,273 3,121,571 - 1,034,600 (1,034,600) 2,086,971 28 PB&R Special Revenue Fund 2,198,240 2,145,917 - 64,370 (64,370) 2,081,547 31 Pacifica Library Fund 106,991 106,784 30,000 30,000 - 106,784 38 Disaster Accounting Fund 2,967,577 4,513,929 1,958,415 506,673 1,451,742 5,965,671 Total Special Revenue and Capital Funds 19,499,161 $ 20,117,259 20,685,478 23,924,419 (3,238,941) $ 16,878,318

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
65 Self Funded Dental Plan 108,470 156,627 244,188 174,000 70,188 226,815 66 Self-Insurance Fund W/C 1,086,659 811,522 1,358,700 1,377,906 (19,206) 792,316 67 Self-Insurance Fund Liability 852,643 765,240 417,000 484,206 (67,206) 698,034 71 Motor Pool Operations Fund (124,734) (81,332) 1,479,246 1,108,969 370,277 288,945 72 Motor Pool Replacement Fund 3,503,889 3,046,100 40,100 982,800 (942,700) 2,103,400 Total Internal Service Funds 5,426,927 4,698,157 3,539,234 4,127,881 (588,647) 4,109,510

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
40 Debt Service Fund 233,296 227,401 2,902,855 2,902,855 (0) 227,401 Total Debt Service Funds 233,296 227,401 2,902,855 2,902,855 (0) 227,401 Total Other Funds $ 49,202,330 $ 52,598,008 $ 46,667,753 $ 57,475,208 $ (10,807,455) $ 41,790,553 Total All Funds $ 65,705,178 $ 69,099,381 $ 89,760,996 $ 100,477,417 $ (10,716,422) $ 58,382,959 Revenues &
Transfers In
Revised Budget
Expenditures &
Transfers Out
Revised Budget
Revenue
Over(Under)
Expenditures
Projected Fund
Balance
6/30/2022
Attachement 5
City of Pacifica
FY 2021-22 Revised Budget
Fund Balances Summary
Fund Name
Audited Fund
Balance
7/1/2020
Fund Balance
6/30/2021
*Negative balances will be reviewed during the budget development process and at year end to reduce and/or eliminate deficit in these funds *

15.e
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment 5 - FY 2021-22 Fund Balance Summary by Fund (4925 : FY 2021-22 Mid-Year

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Follow-up Information about Council Chambers Improvements or Relocation of Meetings to an Alternate Location
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive follow-up information about Council Chambers’ improvements or relocation of City Council meetings to the Community Center or Oceana High School Theatre and provide direction to the City Manager about next steps.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

At the December 13, 2021 City Council meeting, at the request of then Mayor pro Tem Bier, the City Council discussed whether the Council supported making modest improvements to the current Council Chambers or relocating City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meetings to the Community Center Auditorium at 540 Crespi Drive. As part of that discussion, the Council directed the City Manager to bring back more cost and operational impact information about those options, in addition to inquiring about potential use of the Oceana High School Theatre. The information below was included in a report to Council at the February 28, 2022, City Council meeting. However, due to how late the Council meeting was running, discussion of this information was rescheduled to the March 14 City Council meeting.

Council Chambers, Community Center Auditorium, and Oceana High School Theatre This topic is about whether there is Council interest in pursuing the possibility of relocating City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission meetings to the Community Center Auditorium at 540 Crespi Drive or to Oceana High School Theatre. If not, is there Council interest in exploring funding modest improvements to the current Council Chambers, such as painting, redecorating walls, new carpet, and potentially reconstructing the Council dais to more of a curved configuration to facilitate lines of sight between Councilmembers during Council deliberations. As follow-up to the December 13, 2021, discussion on this topic, staff has researched these options further and has the following information to report:

I. Oceana High School Theatre:

The City Manager reached out to the Jefferson Union High School District Superintendent and related staff to inquire about the feasibility of holding City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches, & Recreation Commission meetings at the 16 Packet Pg. 422
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
Oceana High School Theatre. The District’s initial reaction was that while they would like to be a good community partner and help facilitate this arrangement, they are concerned about extra work related to cleaning and/or supervising the space on a weekly basis. However, they are open to discussing it further if the City Council is interested.

In addition, a more thorough assessment would need to be completed regarding Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, technology improvements, and portability of furniture and A/V equipment to not interfere with school usage of the theatre. The District is not currently allowing outside rentals of the theatre due to COVID-19, but that may change in the near future.

In summary, this option remains a possibility pending further discussions with the District and facility assessment, should the Council be interested in exploring further.

II. Community Center:

The Community Center auditorium is a multi-use room that provides space for community and senior programming. Holding Council and Commission meetings there would require set-up and break-down for each meeting and significant equipment investment. Some of the details below were presented in December, combined with additional information researched by staff:

Costs:
• Staffing for set-up and breakdown of meetings is estimated to $1,200/month and would impact Public Works and Community Center staff workload normally spent on other duties;
• Janitorial: Unknown extra cost and scheduling for extra janitorial service; • Audio/Visual Technology Upgrades: $75,000 - $95,000
▪ Portable mixing/control audio configuration required
▪ Installation of audio and visual monitors
▪ Portable computer equipment for Council/staff
▪ Microphones/Assistive Listening Devices (depending on what could be reused from the Council Chambers)
▪ Pacifica Community Television costs/operations - See Attachment A.

Some equipment details may overlap with above. Estimated cost to PCT is $50,000.

Pros:
• Nicer facility than Council Chambers
• More accessible
• More parking and better outside lighting
• Convenience of staff offices in the same building
Cons:
• Facility not centrally located in town
• Senior/Community programming impact and loss of revenue:
▪ Dance classes and community meeting space would not be able to occur in the auditorium approximately 5-8 nights per month (depending on number of regular and special Council meetings) and some afternoons (depending on start-time of meetings which determines start time of setup) ▪ Revenue loss of approximately $20,000/year (based on 2019 figures) III. Improvements to Council Chambers:

The Council Chambers serves as a dedicated facility for Council/Commission meetings. 16 Packet Pg. 423
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
Lighting and audio/visual improvements have been made to the Council Chambers in recent years. PCT has a dedicated equipment room at the facility. Updated cost estimates from Public Works for cosmetic improvements are as follows:

Item Cost
Repaint Chambers $49,000
Replace Carpeting $25,000
Replace Windows $35,000
Replace Dais $50,000
Total $159,000
The repainting cost is high due to wallpaper removal and retexturing and preparing the walls for new paint. These items would not trigger any ADA required improvements; however, any other items that would increase the total cost to over $171,000 would require ADA improvements, making the project more costly. Repainting the chambers, replacing the carpet, and replacing the windows to refresh the space by using warmer, brighter colors, would be the easiest components of cosmetic improvements. The cost for these three tasks would be $109,000 and could take up to two months, depending on window and carpet stock inventory. Reconstructing the dais would be more complex, involving design, fabrication, and electrical permitting and work.

The City Manager is seeking direction from the Council whether to pursue further any of these options. On December 13, 2021, the City Manager also indicated the need to report back to the Council about anticipated workload impacts for pursuing these options. Due to staff vacancies, the many priority projects impacting the City Manager’s Office, Public Works, and the IT Division (as relates to this issue, but other Departments are also maxed out), and the recent tripling of Public Records Act Requests being processed by the City Clerk’s Office, staff has no additional bandwidth to pursue these options without postponing other priorities. The option that is the least impactful to other priorities would be cosmetic improvements to the Council Chambers, which would be contracted out and managed by Public Works.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could identify additional options or alternatives for Council discussion not included in the information above.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Improvements to Council/Commission meeting spaces, whether at Council Chambers or the Community Center, relate to Council Goals “An Engaged Community” and “Stewardship of City Infrastructure.”
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the Council’s discussion of this item. Potential cost impacts are noted in the above summary information, and would need to be refined further pending Council direction. Funding for Council Chambers improvements would need to be allocated from General Fund undesignated balance.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
16 Packet Pg. 424
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Pacifica Community Television Memorandum re: “Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica Community Center” (PDF) 16 Packet Pg. 425
Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica Community Center DATE: December 6, 2021
TO: The City of Pacifica
FROM: Pacific Coast TV
BACKGROUND:

On November 30, 2021, the City of Pacifica requested that Pacific Coast TV (PCT) provide information about what equipment, audio-visual, broadcasting, etc. components as well as one-time and recurring costs would be involved if the Council were to consider holding regular City Council and Planning Commission meetings at the Pacifica Community Center auditorium instead of at Council Chambers. Additionally, other items to consider are whether or not the community center can accommodate the requirements for an installed control booth or if a mobile setup would be more appropriate. Since the community center is a multipurpose use facility, it would be more practical to use a mobile method.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:

The following is a comprehensive list of equipment and components required to broadcast public meetings originating from the community center:

1. Cameras
a. Tripods/Mounts
b. Cameras
c. Controllers
d. Cabling

2. Control Booth/Cart
a. Monitors
b. Recorders
c. Computers
d. Switcher
e. Distribution Amplifiers
f. Power Conditioners

16.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Community Television Memorandum re: “Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica g. Cabling

3. Audio & Public Address System
a. Microphones
b. Loudspeakers
c. Mixer
d. Distribution amplifiers
e. Cabling
f. Power conditioners
g. Assistive listening

4. Projector System
a. Screen(s)
b. Projector
c. Cabling

5. Broadcast Connectivity/Transport (Through Comcast).
a. Transcoders, Transmitters/Receivers, Encoders/Decoders b. Fiber connectivity
c. Switch

6. Internet Connectivity (for teleconferencing purposes) a. Modem
b. Router/Switch
c. Computers
d. Cabling
COSTS:

PCT can address costs relating to items 1 (cameras) and 2 (control booth/cart). The estimated one time cost for equipment alone is $50,000.

Costs relating to item 3 (audio & public address) should be addressed to Norcal Sound.

Costs relating to item 5 (broadcast connectivity) should be addressed to Comcast PEG division.

Ongoing costs will likely be incurred by telecommunication subscriptions such as internet service providers and teleconferencing.

16.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Community Television Memorandum re: “Broadcasting Services for the City of Pacifica from the Pacifica

Pacifica City CouncilMarch 14, 2022

Pacifica City Council
March 14, 2022