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.
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)
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.
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 (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 Alquist- 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)
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.
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:
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)