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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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.
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. 3 Packet Pg. 216
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
(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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
(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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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:
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.
3 Packet Pg. 220
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
* * * * *
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
PC Staff Report
New SFR and ADU at TBD Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030)
January 18, 2022
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