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. 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. 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. ----- 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?
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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. 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.