Pacifica City Council
March 28, 2022

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the development permits as conditioned and recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development plan.

PREPARED BY: Ranu Aggarwal, AICP, Contract Planner
1 Packet Pg. 16

5.d
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

PROJECT SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS
TABLE 1. ZONING STANDARDS CONFORMANCE:

Standard Required Existing Proposed
Lot Size 20,000 (sf) 24,149.19 sf
(0.55 acres)
No Change
Lot Width 100’ 191’ No Change
HPD Coverage 0 % (maximum) 0% 27% (6,578 sf)1
Lot Coverage
-Impervious Surface 40% (maximum) 0% 13%
-Structures 30% (maximum) 0% 7%
Landscaping 20% N/A 79% (19,146 sf)2
Usable Recreational Open
Space3
200 sf (minimum) N/A 537 sf
Setbacks4
-Front (west) 25’-0” N/A 45’-0”
-Side (north) 15’-0” N/A 97’-3” (average)
-Side (south) 15’-0” N/A 50’-0”
-Rear (east) 25’-0” N/A 26’-6”
Height 35’-0” N/A 35’-0”
Parking 2 covered (garage)
spaces
2 uncovered spaces
1 guest space
N/A 2 covered (garage spaces)
2 uncovered spaces
1 guest space
A. PROJECT SUMMARY

1. Background
The Planning Commission considered this project at a public hearing on August 2, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission received public comment from the applicant and other members of the public, and deliberated on the project (staff report and select attachments included as Attachment B, and 1 The stated amount of HPD coverages reflects the provision of an additional guest parking space that the Planning Commission requested the applicant to evaluate on August 2, 2021. The HPD coverage without the guest parking space would be 6,573.13 sf, or 27.2% of the site.
2 The landscaping area includes both the natural vegetated area (17,571.46 sf) and planted area.(1,574.85 sf). 3 "Usable open space" shall mean common or private outdoor living, recreation, domestic use, or landscaping.

Such area may be on the ground or on a roof, porch, deck, court, or balcony. […] Any separate area to qualify under this definition shall be a minimum of four (4′) feet by ten (10′) feet. Usable open space shall not have a slope of more than ten (10%) percent. PMC Section Sec. 9-4.260.2. 4 The front, sides and rear setbacks here have been determined by staff using the definitions in PMC 9-4.269 et seq., although the project plans instead note the side facing the entrance to the building as the front and specify the setbacks accordingly in the Building Information Table on Sheet A-0 of the Project Plans. 1 Packet Pg. 17

5.d
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

minutes included as Attachment C). The Planning Commission’s deliberations identified several areas where the Commission required additional information, as summarized in the list below:
• Project renderings: The Planning Commission directed the applicant to prepare renderings of the project from the end of Canyon Drive to the northwest, looking up toward the proposed residence; from a vantage point on Milagra Ridge Trail to the north; and, from the Grace McCarthy scenic overlook off Sharp Park Road located to the south of the subject site. The Planning Commission expressed that renderings to illustrate the appearance of the proposed residence would be helpful for their decision given the prominence of the building location in the hillside and that the intention of the Hillside Preservation District is to preserve the hillside.

The applicant has provided the renderings requested by the Planning Commission, including an additional rendering from the end of Talbot Drive (Attachment D). • Additional parking: The Planning Commission expressed an interest in an additional parking stall for guest parking at the beginning of the driveway to the residence to potentially eliminate the need for a variance and parking exception for a guest parking space, as required by Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.2259(d). The applicant has revised the project plans to demonstrate where a guest parking space could be accommodated on the site (Attachment E). • Location of the flow-thru planter (bio-detention area): The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the encroachment in the PG&E easement of a corner of the flow-thru planter closest to the driveway, and the proximity of the planter to the gas line located on the property in a north-south direction. The applicant has made minor modifications to the flow-thru planter location as demonstrated in the revised project plans (Attachment E). • The status of the unofficial trail that extends up toward Sharp Park Road through the on-site PG&E easement. Staff has investigated this matter further and concluded there is not a mechanism through which the City may seek a dedication of this trail for continued public use through the development review process for this project.

Following its deliberations on August 2, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 20, 2021. As noted in the continuance memorandum published for the continued public hearing, the item was further continued to October 4, 2021, but the public hearing was not conducted on that date, and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date to be determined.

Planning Department staff published notice in the Pacifica Tribune and mailed it to surrounding property owners and occupants, as required by law, prior to this public hearing. This hearing is the first public hearing on the project since August 2, 2021.

A. Project Renderings: The applicant has provided renderings of the project (Attachment D) as viewed from the vantage points requested by the Planning Commission on August 2, 2021.

Staff’s assessment is that the renderings prepared by the applicant are reflective of the vantage points requested by the Planning Commission and support the findings for approval of the project as described in the attached draft resolution (Attachment A). The renderings, however, do not include additional landscaping proposed by the applicant, including trees on the downhill side of the proposed development, that would serve to further soften and screen the proposed building from various vantage points. The full landscaping plan, which includes groundcover, shrubs, and tree species is shown on Sheet A-5 of the project plans (Attachment E). 1 Packet Pg. 18

5.d
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

Narrative in the Seismic Safety and Safety element of the General Plan incorporates a general recommendation regarding the type of vegetation appropriate for steep slopes, described as those in excess of 50% slope, for erosion control based on a 1982 report prepared by Howard Donley Associates, Inc. (HDAI) 'Geological Investigation - Landslide Type and Distribution - Mechanics Details of Nine Representative Failures - January 1982 Rainstorms - City of Pacifica, California'. This recommendation states that “For steep slopes in excess of 50%, the slopes should contain a mature stand of grass or other type of groundcover. However, shrubbery, brush and trees appear to be more harmful to the overall stability of steep slopes and should be avoided” in order to control erosion as important mitigation measure to avoid slope failure. (General Plan, p. 102). The general recommendations of the HDAI Report stress the use of geotechnical evaluation prior to development in potentially hazardous areas, including consideration of potential upslope or downslope hazards.

The applicant has prepared a site-specific report to assess potential geotechnical hazards applicable to the proposed project. The project’s geotechnical report entitled “Geotechnical Investigation for the New Residence at 722 Talbot Avenue (sic), Pacifica, CA 94044”, dated September 19, 20185, prepared by Summit Engineering incorporates investigation of the soil and geologic conditions of site. This report recommends planting any new cut slopes, and any slopes disturbed by construction operations, to minimize sloughing and erosion. The report further recommends drought and fire-resistant shrubs and trees for plantings and careful installation and operation of automatic sprinkler systems and keeping to a minimum either manual or automatic irrigation so as not produce excessive amounts of water.

The preparation of a site-specific geotechnical hazard report for the proposed project is consistent with General Plan policies to ensure geotechnical hazards are properly addressed prior to approving development. The site-specific geotechnical hazard report prepared for the proposed project specifically recommends the installation of shrubs and trees and, therefore, it is staff’s assessment that these specific recommendations are appropriate despite the more general statement in the Safety and Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan that shrubbery, brush and trees should be avoided on slopes in excess of 50%. However, the site-specific geotechnical hazard report did identify concerns related to excessive irrigation. Thus, staff has modified the condition of approval in Attachment A that addresses preparation of a final landscape plan to require that the project geotechnical engineer confirms in writing that any proposed irrigation system would be consistent with his recommendations related to slope stability.

B. Guest Parking Space: The applicant has submitted revised plans (Attachment E), which show an additional 19’ X 9’ parking space for guest parking at the entrance to the site, a location determined to be the most feasible for the provision of the guest parking. The changes to the various components and overall HPD coverage because of the inclusion of the guest parking in the project are summarized in the following table:
5 The findings of the report were evaluated by Summit Engineering for their validity in 2021. As per the Project Engineer, the conclusion and recommendations of the Geotechnical Report remain valid. 1 Packet Pg. 19

5.d
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

ITEM
Plans presented
August 2, 2021
Revised Plans
October 4, 2021
SQ. FT. SHARE OF
SITE
SQ. FT. SHARE OF
SITE
RETAINING WALLS 8.06 0.03% 8.06 0.03%
HOUSE + CONC. PAD 1,604.04 6.6% 1,604.04 6.6%
DRIVEWAY 1,898.62 7.9% 2,148.40 8.9%
BIOSWALE 145.57 0.6% 148.71 0.6%
PLANTING AREA 1,823.17 7.5% 1,574.85 6.5%
NEIGHBOR DRIVEWAY 1,093.67 4.5% 1,093.67 4.5%
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 6,573.13 27.2% 6,577.73 27.23%
As shown in the table above, 248.30 square feet of area previously proposed to be landscaping coverage would be converted to paving coverage. Overall, there would be an increase of 4.60 square feet in HPD coverage due to the addition of the guest parking space.

In staff’s assessment, while the increase in the overall HPD coverage is nominal, the conversion of landscaping coverage to paving coverage may not be desirable in the front yard, which already would include a considerable amount of paving in the portion visible from Talbot Avenue for the subject site’s driveway and two uncovered parking spaces, and the portion of the driveway for the adjacent site to the south at 722 Talbot Avenue. Additionally, as indicated in the staff report for the August 2, 2021, Planning Commission meeting (Attachment B), the HPD guest parking requirement per the PMC is intended to address projects in increments of ten units in size, requiring one guest parking space per 10 dwelling units or fraction thereof. In this instance, the application of the HPD guest parking standard to a project consisting of one dwelling unit is burdensome and the requirement would be ten times greater than that applied to a project with 10 dwelling units. Further, it is at cross-purposes with the variance for the HPD coverage in that it would require a greater variance to be granted from the HPD coverage standard to allow for the construction of the guest space.

Therefore, on balance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission does not require the provision of the one additional guest parking space However, should the Commission determine that it will require the guest parking space, staff has provided an alternative motion at the end of this staff report.

C. Encroachment of the flow-thru planter into the PG&E easement and proximity to gas line: The Commission requested further information on the constructability of one of the flowthru planters proposed with the project given its close proximity to a PG&E gas line located within a PG&E easement on the site. The two flow-thru planters proposed with the project, also known as bio detention areas, are a component of the drainage system for the site, which are anticipated to facilitate infiltration of run off into the ground with overflow from these areas released into the drain at Talbot Avenue through discharge pipes. As such, the flow-thru planters need to be located and designed to collect the runoff for treatment. As proposed, the 1 Packet Pg. 20

5.d
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

flow-thru planters follow the contours of the land, are located such that the runoff can be drained by gravity and are sized to accommodate the amount of water to be treated. Therefore, the potential for redesign and major modifications to the locations of these features is limited within the confines of the project as proposed.

The proposed flow-thru planter in question, located adjacent to the western property line, has a slanted shape to follow the contours of the site, and its general location provides for an elevation that facilitates drainage by gravity. The applicant has made adjustments to this flowthru planter that place its corner that encroached in the PG&E easement outside of and adjacent to the easement. As revised, the subject flow-thru planter would be located at a minimum distance of 1’-6” from the existing gas line based on the applicant’s stated location of the gas line. Staff has included draft conditions of approval requiring that the applicant coordinate with Underground Service Advisory for utilities markings with verification required by the City staff that the markings are in place prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Staff also recommends a condition of approval requiring certification by the project engineer in writing that no revisions in the project plans are required as a result of the utilities markings; and if revisions are necessary, that they shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building or grading permit.

Staff notes that the flow-thru planters proposed by the applicant are not required by Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges for this project type, which means the Commission could prohibit one or both of the flow-thru planters if it has continued concerns about their impacts to other components of the project such as existing conditions on the site with respect to underground utilities. However, the applicant has designed the project not to increase the rate of stormwater discharge off the project site to the public storm drain system, and the applicant would need to perform further analysis as to any potential impacts from removal of the flow-thru planters on the public storm drain system.

D. Status of the unofficial trail through the property up toward Sharp Park Road: At the Planning Commission meeting on August 2, 2021, the Commission inquired about potential impacts to public access to the unofficial trail that crosses the southern portion of the site through the PG&E easement and possibly through a North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) easement located within the PG&E easement eastward onto Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) property (APN 016-460-020) before it climbs ultimately to the Sharp Park Road public right-of-way between the Grace McCarthy scenic overlook and the entrance to the Milagra Ridge area at College Drive.

In response, the applicant contacted PG&E and NCCWD to discuss the potential for a trail through the easement. Staff’s understanding based upon correspondence from the applicant is that PG&E and NCCWD normally do not have restrictions on access through their easements as long as there are no disturbances to the grades or existing improvements. However, it is not within their purview to grant public access as they are not the property owners and their rights are as recorded in the easement for their use.

The property owner stated he would not object in concept to use of a portion of his property for trail access at the Planning Commission meeting on August 2, 2021 The Circulation Element of the City’s adopted General Plan shows a county bicycle route crossing the site on its south side (p. 91-92). The draft General Plan also shows a 1 Packet Pg. 21

5.d
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

potential connection to an unpaved trail segment in the same general location (Circulation Element, Figure 5-4, p. 5-26) and further includes Policy OC-I-31 to support creation of a new trail extending east from the top of Talbot Avenue to Sharp Park Road with a public access easement (p. 6-20). Volume II of the 2000 Pacifica Open Space Task Force Report, updating the original 1988 version, also includes an indication of an existing bicycle path in the project vicinity in the map entitled Proposed Open Space & Trail System (p. 3). The 2020 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan does not directly address a bicycle or pedestrian trail in this area.

As staff indicated at the Planning Commission hearing on August 2, 2021, the City has not acquired a right for public access for a trail through the property. It is also staff’s opinion that the development review process is not the appropriate time for the City to seek a public access easement in this particular case. Staff has not identified a clear nexus between the project and a requirement by the City for the property owner to grant a public access easement despite the various City planning documents demonstrating the opportunity for a trail in this vicinity.

Although there is no apparent mechanism to acquire a public access easement at this time, staff notes the support in the City’s planning documents for a trail facility in this area and the property owner’s general receptiveness to providing public access across the property. In staff’s assessment, none of the improvements proposed with the project are likely to preclude public access in the future, and staff will consider other ways to pursue public access across the subject property outside of the development review process.

2. Required Findings
The justifications for a General Plan amendment and Rezoning, and the findings required for approval of a Development Plan, Specific Plan, Variance, and Parking Exception were included in the staff report prepared for the August 2, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting (included as Attachment B). These findings have also been included in the draft resolution included as Attachment A. The notable change proposed to the project is the provision of a guest parking as shown in the revised plans (Attachment E).

Should the Planning Commission decide to approve this revision to include a guest parking space, the findings pertaining to the variance and parking exception for the guest parking would be unnecessary and staff would remove them from the adopted resolution (findings for a variance pertaining to HPD coverage would remain).

3. CEQA Recommendation
The project qualifies as a Class 3 categorical exemption as provided in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (a). 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 1 Packet Pg. 22

5.d
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

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 single-family residence fits within the scope of a Class 3 categorical exemption. Specifically, the project (1) includes one single-family residence; and (2) is located in an area where the Pacifica Municipal Code and General Plan authorizes single-family residential uses.

Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of an exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the project, as described below:
• Sec. 15300.2(a): There is no evidence in the record that the project will 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 successive projects of the same type in the area would have a significant environmental impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence in the record of any possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The project is not proposed near a scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources.

The provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this project.

Because the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 3 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

4. Staff Summary and Recommendation
The project proposes construction of a two-story residence on a site constrained by slope and easements in the City’s Hillside Preservation District. The project was the subject of a Planning Commission hearing on August 2, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission directed the project applicant to provide renderings from different vantage points to assist in their determination regarding the project’s consistency with the Hillside Preservation District.

Additional issues identified by the Planning Commission at the subject meeting were the potential provision of a guest parking space to eliminate the need for a variance and parking exception required because of the lack of the guest parking required by HPD standards, encroachment in a PG&E easement 1 Packet Pg. 23

5.d
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

by and proximity to a gas line on site of the flow-thru planter located adjacent to the western property line, and the status of the on-site unofficial trail that leads up to Sharp Park Road from the subject property.

In staff’s assessment, the applicant has adequately responded to the Commission’s request for visual renderings, has evaluated the feasibility of adding the required guest parking space, and has relocated the flow-thru planter to provide greater separation from the PG&E easement and gas line. Staff has additionally added conditions of approval to ensure proper marking of underground utilities and evaluation of the markings in context with the project plans. However, in staff’s assessment, the requirement for a guest parking space would be burdensome on the project and would run at crosspurposes with the variance for HPD coverage in that it would require a greater variance to be granted from the HPD coverage standard to allow for the construction of the guest space. In staff’s assessment the guest parking space would also negatively affect aesthetics by increasing the amount of paving in the front yard.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project as included as Attachment E but without requiring a guest parking space (the revised plans include a modified flowthru planter to address potential issues with construction within the PG&E easement).

B. COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL 1:

Move that the Planning Commission adopts the attached resolution to FIND the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; RECOMMEND City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 described in Exhibit A to the resolution and enactment of the ordinance described in Exhibit B to the resolution to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18; and APPROVE Specific Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18 and Parking Exception PE-191-21 based on the Project Plans, dated September 8, 2021 and included as Attachment E to the Planning Commission staff report except that the approval shall not include the guest parking space in the front yard, and further subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit C of the resolution; and, INCORPORATE all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move that the Planning Commission adopts the attached resolution to FIND the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; RECOMMEND City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 described in Exhibit A to the resolution and enactment of the ordinance described in Exhibit B to the resolution to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18; APPROVE Specific Plan SP-169-18 and Variance PV-526-18 based on the Project Plans, dated September 8, 2021 and included as Attachment E to the Planning Commission staff report, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit C of the resolution, and directing staff to modify the findings for approval to reflect the provision of one guest parking space; and, INCORPORATE all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:
1 Packet Pg. 24

5.d
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) January 18, 2022

Attachment A - Draft Resolution, Draft Ordinance, and COAs (DOCX) Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (PDF)
Attachment C - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (PDF) Attachment D - Project Renderings from Select Vantage Points (PDF) Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 25

5.d
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: August 2, 2021 FILE: GPA-100-21
RZ-201-18
DP-79-18
SP-169-18
PV-526-18
PE-191-21
ITEM: 1
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Pacifica Tribune on June 23, 2021, and mailed to 53 surrounding property owners and occupants.

APPLICANT: Javier Chavarria
848 Burns Ct.

Pacifica, CA 94044
OWNER: Matthew & Margaret Murphy
570 Talbot Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: TBD Talbot Avenue, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue. (APN 016-270-110) – East Sharp Park
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: File No. 2018-057 – Construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with attached 425-sf two-car garage on an undeveloped 24,149-sf parcel.

SITE DESIGNATIONS: Current General Plan: Low Density Residential (LDR) Current Zoning: R-1/B-4/HPD (Single-Family Residential/B-Lot Size Overlay/Hillside Preservation District)
Proposed General Plan: Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Proposed Zoning: P-D/HPD (Planned Development/Hillside Preservation District)
RECOMMENDED CEQA STATUS: Exempt under Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVALS: City Council Approval of Rezoning and Development Plan.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the development permits as conditioned and recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Development plan. 1 Packet Pg. 21

1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

PREPARED BY: Ranu Aggarwal, AICP, Contract Planner
1 Packet Pg. 22

1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

PROJECT SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS
TABLE 1. ZONING STANDARDS CONFORMANCE:

Standard Required Existing Proposed
Lot Size 20,000 (sf) 24,149.19 sf
(0.55 acres)
No Change
Lot Width 100’ 191’ No Change
HPD Coverage 0 % (maximum) 0% 27% (6573 sf)
Lot Coverage
-Impervious Surface 40% (maximum) 0% 12%
-Structures 30% (maximum) 0% 7%
Landscaping 20% N/A 80% (19,399 sf)
Usable Recreational Open
Space1
200 sf (minimum) N/A 537 sf
Setbacks*
-Front (west) 25’-0” N/A 45’-0”
-Side (north) 15’-0” N/A 97’-3” (average)
-Side (south) 15’-0” N/A 50’-0”
-Rear (east) 25’-0” N/A 26’-6”
Height 35’-0” N/A 35’-0”
Parking 2 covered (garage)
spaces
2 uncovered spaces
1 guest space
N/A 2 covered (garage spaces)
2 uncovered spaces
0 guest spaces
* The front, sides and rear setbacks here have been determined by staff using the definitions in PMC 9-4.269 et seq., although the project plans instead note the side facing the entrance to the building as the front and specify the setbacks accordingly in the Building Information Table on Sheet A-0 of the Project Plans.

A. PROJECT SUMMARY

1. General Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Land Uses
General Plan
The General Plan designation for the site is Low Density Residential (LDR). 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 square feet per unit). The proposed single-family residence on a 24,149 square foot (sq. ft.) parcel is consistent with the use type but not the density of allowable development within the LDR land use designation. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment is needed to change the land use designation to the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) land use designation, if the City Council approves 1 "Usable open space" shall mean common or private outdoor living, recreation, domestic use, or landscaping.

Such area may be on the ground or on a roof, porch, deck, court, or balcony. […] Any separate area to qualify under this definition shall be a minimum of four (4′) feet by ten (10′) feet. Usable open space shall not have a slope of more than ten (10%) percent. PMC Section Sec. 9-4.260.2. 1 Packet Pg. 23

1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

the Development Plan for the project. The VLDR land use designation permits residential development at an average density of 0.2 to 2.0 units per acre (an average lot area of one-half to five acres per dwelling unit).

Zoning
The subject site is currently located within the R-1/B-4/HPD (Single-Family Residential/B-Lot Size Overlay/Hillside Preservation District) zoning districts. In accordance with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, which addresses development procedures and standards in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), the development proposal would require a zoning reclassification to a P-D (Planned Development) district and simultaneous approval of a Development Plan, which sets forth permitted uses within the P-D zoned area. The rezoning would not change the HPD zoning of the site and the resulting zoning classification would be P-D/HPD.

In accordance with PMC Sec. 9-4.2204(b), the regulations for area, coverage, density, yards, parking, height, and open ground area within the P-D zoning district shall be guided by the regulations of the residential, commercial, or industrial zoning district most similar in nature and function to the proposed project type. In this case, the existing R-1/B-4 lot size overlay zoning outlined above in Table 1 reflects the residential zoning district most similar in nature and function to the proposed single-family residence, primarily based on the project’s proposal for a single-family residential use consistent with the R-1 zoning, and the project site’s 24,149-sf lot size which is within the range covered by the B-4 lot size overlay development standards.

Surrounding Land Uses
The subject site is located at the eastern end of Talbot Avenue, as shown in Figure 1. The approximately 470-foot length of Talbot Avenue immediately west of the project site is a private street with access rights provided by easement to the project site. The City of Pacifica previously vacated this segment of Talbot Avenue.
1 Packet Pg. 24

1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

Figure 1. Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses.

Lands immediately to the north and east of the site are undeveloped. A single-family residence is located to the south of the site. Additional single-family residential development exists to the west of the project site along the south side of Talbot Avenue.

The general vicinity of the project site is characterized by one- to two-story single-family residential development toward the west along Talbot Avenue and on lower ground toward the northwest along Canyon Drive. Milagra Ridge Trail is located to the northeast of the project site on Golden Gate National Recreation Area property.

2. Municipal Code
The proposed project requires the following five entitlements provided in the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC).
• Rezoning, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2256, because development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a zoning reclassification to P-D (Planned Development) District. Because a 1 Packet Pg. 25

1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

Rezoning is a legislative action, the City Council must take final action on the request under state law and the PMC.
• Development Plan, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203, because development in the P-D district requires adoption of a development plan to identify permitted uses in the P-D District. Because a Development Plan approval is a legislative action, the City Council must take final action on the request under the PMC.
• Specific Plan, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2210, because development in the P-D district requires a specific plan showing proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses.
• Variance, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3401, because the project would exceed the maximum allowable coverage for the site per HPD standards and because the project would not provide the required guest parking space within the HPD zoning district. • Parking Exception, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2824, because the project would not provide the required guest parking space within the HPD zoning district.

The proposed project also requires one additional entitlement that is not specifically provided in the PMC:
• General Plan Amendment, to change the land use designation to VLDR because the project would result in a density lower than allowable within the existing LDR land use designation. The procedure for amending the General Plan includes public review and consideration by the Planning Commission, which shall issue a written recommendation to the City Council, and then public review and consideration by the City Council. Government Code §§ 65353, 65355, 65358.

Because a General Plan Amendment is a legislative action, the City Council must take final action on the request under state law.

3. Project Description
A. Project Site
The project site is a 24,149-sf irregularly shaped parcel accessed in its southern portion via Talbot Avenue, which terminates in a cul-de-sac to the subject parcel’s west. The parcel is 174.39’ wide at its widest at the southern property line, narrowing to a width of 91.73’ at the northern property line. The average depth of the parcel is 186.37’. This parcel was created upon a division of a larger property zoned R-1/B-4/HPD at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue. The 66,565-sf parcel created to the south of the subject lot was approved for development in 2004 upon rezoning to the P-D district and has since been developed with a two-story single-family residence.

The project site contains a 50-foot wide Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) easement along its southern border. An access easement containing a portion of the driveway for the property to the south is also located in this area. The subject parcel also contains underground gas and water lines, and power poles with overhead electrical lines as shown on Sheet A-2 of the project plans (Attachment C). The gas and water lines on the property serve properties in the surrounding area. 1 Packet Pg. 26

1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

The site slopes downhill to the north-northwest from the interior edge of the PG&E easement, reaching slopes greater than 1:1 on the lower portions of the site. The average slope of the property is approximately 55%. Currently the site is undeveloped and predominantly contains grasses and shrubs.

The area of the site proposed for development does not contain any trees.

B. Single-family Residence
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, 2,406-sf residence with attached 425-sf two-car garage. The entry to the residence will be on the first floor (Lower Level), which will contain three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a laundry room and garage. An internal staircase from the lower level will provide access to the second story (Main Level), which will contain a living room/dining room, a kitchen, a family room, and a full bathroom. The residence will include decks on the first and the second story. A second story deck will be accessed from the living room on the building’s western façade, above the garage. Additionally, the residence will include a deck adjacent to the second story/main level family room, on the building’s northwestern façade. The first story will include a deck and a patio, adjacent to Bedroom No. 1 and Bedroom No. 3, respectively, also on the building’s northwestern façade.

C. Access and parking
The project will be accessed from the Talbot Avenue cul-de-sac through a 12’-0” wide driveway that will broaden to 20’-0” wide in front of the two-car garage. The project will also provide uncovered parking for two cars adjacent to the driveway, as shown on Sheet A-3 of the project plans (Attachment C).

D. Landscaping
The project proposes approximately 1,968 sf of new planted area and 17,431 sf of landscaped area that will remain in its existing natural vegetated state for a total of 19,399 sf of landscaped area (80% of the project site). New planting would include shrubs and medium sized trees as listed on Sheet A-5 of the project plans (Attachment C). The shrubs would be located along the perimeter of the proposed building on all sides and to the north of the driveway and uncovered parking. The trees are proposed in front of the northwestern and northeastern facades of the building and to the northwestern side of the uncovered parking. Medium sized trees (Arbutus Marina) are also proposed downhill on the northwestern side of the proposed development. The vegetation proposed is drought tolerant (once established) and can grow in the coastal environment.

E. Grading and Drainage
The proposed building is placed at a cross slope, adjacent to the 50-foot wide PG&E easement on its northwestern side. The proposed placement of the building is designed to minimize excavation and retaining walls on the steeper terrain on the site. As shown on Sheet A-7 and A-8 of the project plans (Attachment C), the building is partially set into the terrain on the southeastern (shown as the front elevation) and northeastern (shown as the right elevation) sides. It reaches a maximum height of 35’-0” as measured from finished grade at the lowest point of the building to the highest point of the building.

The maximum height of the building is partially visible on the northwestern side as shown in the rear elevation and left elevation.
1 Packet Pg. 27

1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

Drainage on the site will incorporate directing run off from the roof of the building and impervious surfaces to vegetated bio-detention areas, as depicted on Sheet A-4.1 of the project plans (Attachment C) through pipes and trenches. The bio-detention areas are anticipated to facilitate infiltration of run off into the ground. Any overflow from these areas would be released into the drain at Talbot Avenue through discharge pipes, if needed. The preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans have been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City’s Engineering Division staff.

4. Required Findings
The reasons for a General Plan amendment and Rezoning, and the findings required for approval of a Development Plan, Specific Plan, Variance, and Parking Exception are included in the following section.

A. General Plan Amendment (GPA-100-21)
The project would require changing the General Plan land use designation of the site to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) from the existing Low Density Residential (LDR) designation. Pacifica Municipal Code Section 2-2.202 specifies that the “Planning Commission shall recommend and advise the Council in the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the City's General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Law, and other specific and area development plans which provide for and control the future physical development and conservation of the City, based upon geographic, social, economic, and environmental characteristics of the community. The Planning Commission shall also advise the Council on private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes.” As noted above, the Planning Commission is not bound by specific findings when making its recommendation to the City Council on a proposed General Plan amendment or rezoning. It may base its recommendation on factors pertaining to general health, safety, and welfare of the community, as well as other relevant factors such as neighborhood narratives, policies, and programs in the existing General Plan.
• Existing Lot and Maximum Development Potential
The site’s average slope of approximately 55% is considered “rugged” and is in the steepest category of slopes within the City’s subdivision lot size standards in Table 4 of PMC Section 10-

1.912. The minimum lot size under these standards should be two acres. Thus, the lot is severely undersized based on its slope according to the City’s subdivision standards (approximately 28% of the required standard).

The development potential of the existing site under the LDR density standards would range from two to five dwelling units. The one single-family dwelling proposed on the site is located in the most readily buildable portion of the site. The potential for additional dwelling units to be constructed on the site would likely result in large volumes of grading and design challenges based on the existing 50-foot wide PG&E easement and the steep slope of the site.

Accommodating additional dwelling units on the project site would have the potential to result 1 Packet Pg. 28

1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

in more extensive grading, large retaining walls, and other unusual project design elements to work around the site’s constraints. Changing the site’s land use designation to VLDR would reduce the development potential to one dwelling unit, would result in more acceptable project design elements to accommodate a single dwelling unit in light of the site’s slope and easement constraints, and would reflect a land use designation assigned to other steeply sloped sites in the City.

Because the existing site is much smaller than required under the City’s subdivision lot size standards based on its very steep slope, because the site is constrained by a large PG&E easement, and because limiting development potential on the site to one dwelling unit would avoid adverse impacts from overdevelopment on the very steep site, therefore, changing the General Plan land use designation to VLDR would protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the City.
• Surrounding Neighborhood
Limiting the project site to development of one dwelling unit would result in development on the site consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood includes exclusively single-family residential development. Therefore, changing the site’s land use designation to VLDR would result in development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
• General Plan Consistency
The proposed change in General Plan land use designation would, on balance, be consistent with the General Plan and its policies that are intended to:
a. Provide safe and consistent access for the development (Circulation Element #4); b. Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation (Circulation Element #15); c. Preserve the unique qualities of the City’s neighborhoods (Community Design Element #1); and
d. Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood (Land Use Element #8).

For the reasons set forth above, staff recommends a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested General Plan amendment.

B. Rezoning (RZ-201-18)
The project would require changing the zoning classification of the site to P-D (Planned Development) with Development Plan for the site as depicted in the project plans. The Commission must provide a written recommendation to the Council on the rezoning. Such recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation and shall be transmitted to the Council in the form of a resolution.

Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Commission at a public hearing.
1 Packet Pg. 29

1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

The rezoning of the project site to P-D (Planned Development) will occur in the same ordinance with the Development Plan. The Development Plan, discussed later in this staff report, will reflect the approved use for the project site. The reasoning provided for the Development Plan approval recommendation, below, are hereby incorporated by reference as the reasoning for recommended approval of the rezoning.

C. Development Plan (DP-079-18)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2206, the Planning Commission shall, after a public hearing, make a recommendation for the establishment of the Development Plan only upon making the following findings.
(a) The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant.

Discussion.

The applicant has detailed that construction of the project would take approximately fourteen months. The time schedule provided by the applicant is reasonable and consistent with other construction timelines experienced by City staff for projects on steep sites. Staff is unaware of any other information at this time to suggest that the proposed project’s construction cannot be completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant. (b) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.

Discussion.

The proposed project will provide one, independent, single-family residential unit and usable recreational open space in conformance with the HPD standards. The standard requires provision of a minimum of 200-sf usable recreational open space. The project provides 474-sf in decks and a patio, which is more than twice the required amount. The development would be independently accessed from a 12’-0” driveway that meets the minimum width requirement for a residential driveway serving one dwelling unit. The project would also comply with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, as analyzed later in the staff report.

Therefore, because the project would contain all elements associated with a single-family residence and would comply with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines governing desirable project design, the total development consisting of one unit can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability upon its development.
1 Packet Pg. 30

1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

(c) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.

Discussion.

The project proposes one single-family residence. As noted previously, development of one single-family residence on the subject site would be consistent with the uses and development pattern of the surrounding developed areas to the north, west, and south. The proposed singlefamily residential development would not be detrimental to the present surrounding uses because they are also single-family residences. Staff has not identified any likely potential development in the surrounding area based on its substantially developed condition and the location to the east of the project site a large parcel of undeveloped land that is the Milagra Ridge area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA).

Therefore, the proposed single-family residential use on the subject site will be consistent with the existing developed area around the project site; would not be detrimental to any potential future development surrounding the site; and, will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and will have a beneficial effect on the same which would not be achieved through other zoning districts.

It should also be noted that rezoning to P-D (Planned Development) is mandatory pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2256 because the project site is located within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. Approval of a Development Plan is mandatory for development within the P-D district. Therefore, the project must obtain approval of rezoning to P-D and approval of a Development Plan.
(d) The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.

Discussion.

The project proposes the development of one single-family residence, which will be accessed from the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue. Talbot Avenue is an existing residential street characterized by single-family residences. No new streets are proposed with the project.

Additional traffic from the one proposed single-family residence would not be significant and would not adversely affect the carrying capacity of Talbot Avenue. The proposed development has been reviewed by the City of Pacifica Engineering Division staff, who has not identified any concerns related to impacts on the street network outside the project site. (e) Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area.

Discussion.

No commercial development is proposed; therefore, this finding is not applicable. 1 Packet Pg. 31

1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

(f) Any exception from the standard district requirement is warranted by the design of the project and amenities incorporated in the development plan.

Discussion.

As detailed in PMC Section 9-4.2204(b), the development standards for the P-D District “shall be guided by the regulations of the residential, commercial, or industrial zoning district most similar in nature and function to the proposed P-D District uses as determined by the Commission and Council.” The proposed single-family residential development would be most similar in nature and function to the R-1/B-4 (Single-Family Residential/B-Lot Size Overlay) District. The application of R-1 and B-4 lot size overlay development standards, outlined in PMC Sections 9-4.402 and 9-4.2002, respectively, is appropriate for the proposed project based on the lot size and to ensure consistency of the proposed project with existing residential development along Talbot Avenue. The project is consistent with the standards of R-1 and B-4 lot size overlay districts in terms of landscaping, lot size, density, coverage, yards, and height, and no exceptions from these standards are required.

The project site is also subject to the development standards of the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay district. As discussed later in the staff report, the project would comply with all standards of the HPD district except for the standards applicable to allowable coverage and guest parking. The applicant is seeking a Variance to deviate from the coverage limitation applicable to the site and the guest parking required per the requirements of the HPD, and a Parking Exception to allow for a reduction in guest parking required per HPD standards.

Approval of the Variance and Parking Exception as requested is necessary because of the steep slope of the site and the constraints to develop present on the site including but not limited to the steep slope and the presence of a 50-foot wide PG&E easement on the flattest, most easily developed portion of the site. The considerations applicable to approval of the Variance and Parking Exception are discussed further elsewhere in the staff report.

The project as conditioned would be consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines, as discussed in the findings for approval of a Specific Plan. By achieving Design Guidelines consistency, and by complying with all development standards other than HPD coverage and HPD guest parking requirements, the project design would be desirable and the relevant exceptions would be warranted in light of the overall project design. (g) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.

Discussion.

As discussed above, the proposed single-family residential land use would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses. The surrounding neighborhood is substantially developed already with single-family residences. The only sizeable land area that is not 1 Packet Pg. 32

1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

developed is the Milagra Ridge portion of the GGNRA which to the east of the project site which is owned by the Federal government and is outside the City’s jurisdiction for planning and zoning. Therefore, the area surrounding the development site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development.

As described elsewhere in the staff report, the project would be in conformance with the General Plan except for the density of development, which warrants a General Plan amendment to the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) land use designation to align allowable density with the project site’s 24,149.19 sf (0.55 acres) size because the VLDR land use designation allows residential development at an average density of 0.2 to 2.0 units per acre (an average lot area of one-half to five acres per dwelling unit).

Other areas of the project’s consistency with the General Plan include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
a. Provide safe and consistent access for the development (Circulation Element #4): The project would utilize Talbot Avenue, an existing residential street that has a suitable design for the intensity of proposed development (one single-family residence). The project site would be accessed from a new residential driveway from Talbot Avenue that would meet the design requirements for a driveway in Article 28 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC.
b. Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation (Circulation Element #15): The project involves a very low density residential development consistent with the proposed VLDR land use designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. As noted above, the circulation system provided for the development is adequate for the one single-family residence that is proposed. The project would occur within a substantially developed single-family residential neighborhood and by occurring on an existing lot served by an existing street, would be orderly. c. Preserve the unique qualities of the City’s neighborhoods (Community Design Element #1): The project would occur in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It would include development of one single-family residence on an existing lot. No characteristics of the project would be inconsistent with the qualities of the surrounding neighborhood.
d. Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood (Land Use Element #8): As already noted above, the project would occur in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It would include development of one single-family residence on an existing lot. No characteristics of the project would be inconsistent with the qualities of the surrounding neighborhood.

The project site is not located in the coastal zone, therefore, the Local Coastal Plan is not applicable to this project.
1 Packet Pg. 33

1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

(h) The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

The City has adopted Design Guidelines which are intended to accomplish the following purposes:
• Ensure at least a minimum standard of design through the application of consistent policies.
• Encourage new construction which exceeds minimum standards and discourage construction which falls short of those standards.
• Provide a framework for review and evaluation of design proposals. • Implement applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Plan goals and policies. • Expedite and facilitate the planning permit process.
• Provide direction for design and redesign of projects.

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.

In staff’s assessment, as conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines. Major areas of Design Guidelines relevant to the project are discussed below:

SITE PLANNING
i. Site Improvements. Locate site improvements such as buildings, parking areas and walkways to take advantage of desirable features […] Lot grading should be minimized and disruption of natural features such as trees, ground forms, rocks and water courses should be avoided.

Discussion
The project proposes to construct a two-story building along the northern edge of the PG&E easement in the southern portion of the subject site. While the proposed building is sited to take advantage of the views through the canyon to the west, it is also sited to avoid the north-northwesterly trending steep slopes that drop sharply from the location of the proposed building, thereby minimizing excavation and grading. The project proposes approximately 197 cubic yards of net cut, which is a relatively small amount of grading considering the very steep slope of the site. The location of the building on the site does not 1 Packet Pg. 34

1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

contain any significant trees and would not disrupt valuable natural features such as trees, ground forms, rocks or water courses.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project would be consistent with this design guideline.
ii. Building Location. […] Building placement should take into account potential impacts of adjacent properties. Existing views, privacy and solar access of surrounding properties should be preserved wherever possible.

Discussion
Development in the immediate vicinity of the subject site includes a single-family residence to the south of the site. The lot adjacent to the subject property to its west is undeveloped, and the eastern side contains the open space of the Milagra Ridge area of the GGNRA. To the north, single-family residences are located on Canyon Drive on a lower elevation from the location of the proposed development on the subject site.

The project proposes deep setbacks from the property boundaries for the proposed development. The proposed residence would be setback 50’-0” from the southern property boundary, a minimum of 45’-0” and 26’-3” from the western and eastern property boundaries, respectively. The proposed residence would be approximately 113’-6” from the northern property boundary in the vicinity of residences on Canyon Drive. Given the deep setbacks, the proposed development would not impact privacy and solar access of the residence to the south, any future development to the west and the east or residences on Canyon Drive below to the north.

The proposed new development may partially block views to the northwest for the residence to the south of the project site. However, views to the west toward the Pacific Ocean would remain. The views from the deck to the south side of this neighboring building would also not be compromised. Intervening vegetation will partially shield the residences on lower elevation on Canyon Drive from a view of the proposed new building.

The proposed building, particularly its rear and right side (eastern) facades would be visible from certain vantage points from the Milagra Trail to the north, northeast of the site as shown on Sheets A-7 and A-8 of the Project Plans (Attachment C). Articulation on these facades with windows, balconies and varied material and roof line on the rear façade, and materials and windows on the eastern façade would serve to reduce the visual impact of the proposed building from Milagra Ridge.

Additionally, a condition of approval requires darker color for the roof moldings and bands at the second story that blend well with the proposed development’s natural environment as opposed to the light-colored roof of the proposed development, which could render it more prominent in its environment, particularly from Milagra Ridge Trail. 1 Packet Pg. 35

1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project, as conditioned, would be consistent with this design guideline.
iii. Lighting. Exterior lighting should be subdued, and should enhance building design as well as provide for safety and security. Lighting which creates glare for occupants and neighbors should not be used […]
Discussion
The project proposes LED wall mount sconce exterior lighting near the entryway to the residence, the garage door and on the decks. As such, the lighting proposed is not excessive and would serve to provide visibility and security in exterior areas used by the occupants. It is unlikely to create glare for the neighbors and the building residents as the lighted areas would be down lit. Additionally, a condition of approval of the projects requires a final exterior lighting plan reflecting techniques to reduce light and glare, and integration of the lighting with building architecture.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project, as conditioned, would be consistent with this design guideline.

BUILDING DESIGN
iv. Design. The style and design of new buildings should be in character with that of the surrounding neighborhood. This does not mean that new buildings should be identical to existing buildings on neighboring lots, but that new buildings should complement, enhance and reinforce the positive characteristics of surrounding development. This can be accomplished by incorporating the dominant architectural features of an area into the design of new development. Such features may include bay windows, chimneys, balconies […] roof shapes and other architectural details and materials.

Discussion
The proposed development would be located at the crest of Talbot Avenue at its eastern terminus. Development in the surrounding neighborhood that would be visible in the same context as the project site includes residences along Talbot Avenue. The land adjacent to the project site to its west is undeveloped. Residences are located across the street on the south side of Talbot Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed development.

The architectural character of these buildings is varied. The building across from the proposed development to its south is a three story, approximately 35 feet tall building constructed in a Tuscan style. Utilizing a 300 feet distance from the proposed development for reference for evaluation of compatibility of the proposed building with the existing buildings, those located to the west of the Tuscan style residence are one to two-story. The 1 Packet Pg. 36

1.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

design of the two-story buildings features sloping roofs with the second story placed directly atop the first story.

The subject project proposes a two-story modern style building, with the second story placed directly atop the first story. The proposed building would have a flat roof, although it would have a varied profile with the lower roof on the downhill sides of the building.

Based on discussion above, in staff’s assessment the proposed development is consistent with this design guideline.
v. Scale. An important aspect of design compatibility is scale. Scale is the measure of the relationship of the relative overall size of one structure with one or more other structures. Scale is also used to refer to a group of buildings, a neighborhood, or an entire city. A development can be “out of scale” with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density.

Discussion
The proposed building would appear in scale with the surroundings because, overall, the size and height of the proposed structure is similar to buildings in the vicinity. The proposed project’s height would specifically be very similar to the nearest single-family residence that is located immediately to the south, which is approximately 35 feet tall.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project would be consistent with this design guideline.
vi. Details. Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale.

Wall insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the scale of larger buildings.

Discussion
The proposed building includes decks with railings, and relatively deep roof overhangs to provide visual relief and variety in a building characterized by clean lines and geometry. The project incorporates a significant number of windows on all sides relative to the surface area of the corresponding building façade with variation in materials that lend visual interest to the building.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project would be consistent with this design guideline.
1 Packet Pg. 37

1.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

vii. 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.

Discussion
The proposed building will include a combination of siding materials such as stucco and stone, interspersed with glass windows. The proposed decks and patio would be enclosed by stainless steel railings. A combination of these materials appears to add interest and integrates well with the modern architecture of the building.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project would be consistent with this design guideline.
viii. Color. Building color should be compatible with the neighborhood and should reinforce and complement the visual character of the building’s environment. Multiple colors applied to a single building should relate to changes of material or form.

Discussion
Buildings in the project vicinity are of medium to light hues with some darker hues. The proposed building uses a combination of darker color horizontal siding and stucco of medium hue with light horizontal moldings along the roof. These colors would likely be compatible with the colors of existing buildings along Talbot Avenue.

However, the proposed building’s environment includes the Milagra Ridge Trail to the northeast of the project site. As discussed above in this report, the proposed development would be visible from some vantage points on Milagra Ridge Trail. The light-colored roof of the proposed development would render it more prominent in its environment, particularly from Milagra Ridge Trail and, thus, not complementary to proposed building’s environment.

Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a darker color for the roof moldings and bands at the second story that blend well with the proposed development’s natural environment.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project, as conditioned, would be consistent with this design guideline.
ix. Privacy. Consideration should be given to the impact of development on the privacy of surrounding properties. Use judicious windows placement and appropriate landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of privacy.

Discussion
See discussion under ‘Site Planning’ above. The building would be sited with large setbacks that would ensure the protection of privacy for surrounding developed properties.

Therefore, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project would be consistent with this design guideline.
1 Packet Pg. 38

1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

x. Consistency. There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations.

All elevations need not be identical, but a sense of overall design continuity must occur.

Window treatment and trim, for example, should be carried out around the entire building, not just on the most visible sides.

Discussion
The proposed development features similar facades on all sides in terms of use of materials and form that results in an overall congruent design.

Based on the discussion above, in staff’s assessment, the proposed project is consistent with this design guideline.

LANDSCAPING
xi. Amount and Variety. Applicants are encouraged to exceed the minimum amount of landscaping required by the zoning ordinance and landscaping plans should incorporate a variety of plant species. The amount, scale, and nature of landscape materials should be appropriate to the site and/or structure. Large-scale buildings should be complemented by large-scale landscaping. Development along major streets should also include large scale trees.

Discussion
The project proposes 80% of the site area in landscaping including new planting and exiting area with natural vegetation, which is 60% more than the minimum of 20% required by the zoning ordinance. New plantings would include six varieties of shrubs and one variety of medium sized trees, as shown on Sheet A-5 of the Project Plans (Attachment C). The proposed tree species (Arbutus Marina) can reach up to 25-50 feet tall with a spread of 20- 30 feet. In staff assessment, the proposed plantings would soften the scale of the building.

However, the landscape plan does not show the actual spread (20-30 feet) of the trees that they may reach upon maturity. It appears that the trees at the perimeter of the as shown on the landscape plan are planted too close to the proposed building. A condition of approval would require a final landscape plan that shall include information on the irrigation system in addition to the size at maturity and location of the plant species that must be drought tolerant, coastal compatible and predominantly native for review and approval by the Planning Director.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with this design guideline.
1 Packet Pg. 39

1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
xii. Slope Stability and Erosion. Many of the hillside areas show signs of instability through creep and slippage. Drainage and erosion potential are also problems associated with hillside development.
(a)Obtain input from a geologist or soils engineer early in the design process. A geotechnical report may be required.
(b) Avoid construction near geologically fragile or unstable areas. (c) Use engineering techniques, such as drainage swales and channels, catch basins, and French drains to direct runoff.
(d) Use landscaping techniques such as netting, hydroseeding and selection of plants which have root systems which aid in stabilizing the soil.

Discussion.

The project applicant prepared a geotechnical report incorporating investigation of the soil and geologic conditions of site prior to submitting the application. This report titled “Geotechnical Investigation for the New Residence at 722 Talbot Avenue (sic2), Pacifica, CA 94044”, dated September 19, 2018, prepared by Summit Engineering, concluded that the proposed new single-family residence could be constructed safely on the site, subject to the recommendations in the report. The findings of the report were evaluated by Summit Engineering for their validity in 2021. As per the Project Engineer, the conclusion and recommendations of the Geotechnical Report remain valid. It is the standard procedure of the Planning Department to perform a design-level peer review of geotechnical reports during the building permit phase if a project such as the subject project is approved.

Additionally, the project proposes shrubs in the proximity of disturbed area for the proposed development. These plantings are anticipated to stabilize the soils and slope in the area to be disturbed, while area down slope of the location of the proposed developed would remain naturally vegetated.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is consistent with this design guideline. 2 The report title includes the address of the neighboring property. 1 Packet Pg. 40

1.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

xiii. Excavation. Large amounts of cut and/or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. (a) Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it.
(b) Whenever feasible, buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
(c) Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
(d) 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.

Discussion
The steep slope of the project site and the presence of a 50-foot wide PG&E easement in the flattest portions of the project site present significant constraints to siting of a building.

Despite these constraints, the applicant has proposed a building that results in a relatively small amount of net cut (approximately 197 cubic yards) in light of the steep slope on the project site. The relatively small amount of grading is a result of the project relating relatively well to the site’s topography. The applicant has proposed placing the two-story building on a cross slope near at the northern boundary of the PG&E easement toward the center of the site to avoid severe slopes downhill to the north and the east. While the building is not aligned with existing contours of the land, in this instance, the proposed configuration would serve to minimize excavation and grading. The project does not require new roads and the driveway is proposed at the minimum allowable with for most of its length on the site, minimizing the need for excessive grading and retaining walls for site access.

In staff’s assessment, on balance, the project is consistent with this design guideline. (i) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.

Discussion.

The Local Coastal Plan is not applicable to this project as it is not located in the Coastal Zone.

The proposed project’s consistency with the City’s adopted General Plan includes, but is not limited to, the following policies:
1 Packet Pg. 41

1.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

a. Provide safe and consistent access for the development (Circulation Element #4): The project would utilize Talbot Avenue, an existing residential street that has a suitable design for the intensity of proposed development (one single-family residence). The project site would be accessed from a new residential driveway from Talbot Avenue that would meet the design requirements for a driveway in Article 28 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC.
b. Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation (Circulation Element #15): The project involves a very low density residential development consistent with the proposed VLDR land use designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. As noted above, the circulation system provided for the development is adequate for the one single-family residence that is proposed. The project would occur within a substantially developed single-family residential neighborhood and by occurring on an existing lot served by an existing street, would be orderly. c. Preserve the unique qualities of the City’s neighborhoods (Community Design Element #1): The project would occur in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It would include development of one single-family residence on an existing lot. No characteristics of the project would be inconsistent with the qualities of the surrounding neighborhood.
d. Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood (Land Use Element #8): As already noted above, the project would occur in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It would include development of one single-family residence on an existing lot. No characteristics of the project would be inconsistent with the qualities of the surrounding neighborhood.

Upon approval of the General Plan amendment to change the site’s land use designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the project would also be consistent with the intended density of development within the allowable range for the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) land use designation, which allows residential development at an average density of 0.2 to 2.0 units per acre (an average lot area of one-half to five acres per dwelling unit) which would be consistent with the site’s 24,149.19 sf (0.55 acres) size.

As conditioned, the location, size and design of the proposed residential project is consistent with the character of the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood.

The project would also be consistent with the density standards for the VLDR land use designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and other policies in the Circulation Element, Community Design Element, and Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan. 1 Packet Pg. 42

1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

D. Specific Plan (SP-169-18)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2209, the Commission shall approve a specific plan only upon making the following findings:
(a) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.

Discussion.

An approved development plan contains a list of approved uses for an area with P-D zoning.

The approved uses in a development plan are implemented with approval of one or more specific plans which specify the site layout, architectural design, and other detailed parameters of individual projects proposed for construction. The application for the proposed project includes the development plan and the specific plan together.

The Development Plan would allow one single-family residence and an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit consistent with the PMC. The project proposes to construct one single-family residence and would be consistent with the allowed uses in this Development Plan. The Development Plan would also require compliance with project-specific property line setbacks that are more restrictive than those associated with the R-1/B-4 (SingleFamily Residential/B-4 Lot Size Overlay) zoning districts, and compliance with the Landscaping, Lot Size, Lot Width, and Lot Coverage development standards of the R-1/B-4 (Single-Family Residential/B-4 Lot Size Overlay) zoning districts as well as the development standards of the Hillside Preservation District, except where a Variance has been granted to deviate from the HPD coverage limit and guest parking requirement of the HPD overlay zone and a Parking Exception has been granted to deviate from the guest parking requirement of the HPD overlay zone. Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion of the project’s compliance with the R-1 and B-4 development standards, and the findings for approval of a Variance and Parking Exception that authorize deviations from certain HPD development standards, the proposed specific plan would be consistent with the approved development plan. (b) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines Discussion.

The specific plan is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as described above.

Consistency includes but is not limited to Design Guidelines related to Site Planning, Building Design, Landscaping, and Hillside Development. Therefore, the specific plan is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.

E. Variance (PV-526-18)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3404 and Government Code section 65906, the Commission shall grant a variance only upon making the following findings:
1 Packet Pg. 43

1.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.

The project site is located within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay district. The project requires approval of a variance from two standards of the HPD overlay district: coverage and guest parking.

The HPD regulates development coverage through a formula based on a site’s average slope. Coverage includes all buildings, paving, and grading on a site. All areas not considered to be “coverage” must remain undisturbed in their native or natural state, with the exception of certain recreational areas and certain public streets. Recreation facilities and active recreation areas which can be utilized by all residents of the development may be exempt from counting towards coverage. Additionally, the Planning Commission may exclude dedicated public streets from counting towards coverage provided such public streets serve a major, City-wide circulation function and would not otherwise be necessary to the design and function of the individual project.

The project site’s average slope is 55.17%. The steep slope is a special topographical circumstance applicable to the project site. Based on the coverage formula in PMC Section 9-4.2257, the project site would be eligible for no coverage (i.e., 0%). The formula only provides coverage for sites that have an approximate maximum average slope of 37.42%. Because the HPD coverage formula would provide the project site with no allowable coverage, the potential exists for the application of the HPD ordinance to deprive the property owner of reasonable use of the project site. Additionally, the strict application of this zoning requirement would deprive the owner of the opportunity to construct improvements on its property similar to improvements that have been allowed to be constructed on property that exists in the vicinity of the project site under an identical zoning classification, even though there are portions of the subject site that staff believe could safely accommodate such construction with minimal excavation.

Therefore, the project applicant has requested approval of a Variance to obtain sufficient coverage to enable reasonable use of its property in accordance with the objectives of the HPD ordinance.

PMC Section 9-4.2257 regulating maximum allowable coverage further supports the grant of a variance, as it provides that “[i]t is the intent of this section to allow the reasonable use of hillside lands consistent with the objectives of this article in such a manner so as not to be confiscatory.” The strict application of the HPD coverage limit would deprive the project site of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification, such as the ability to develop one single-family residence consistent with the General Plan and other applicable zoning provisions (assuming the recommended General Plan amendment and Rezoning are approved).

The applicant has indicated its proposed coverage on Sheet A-5.2 of the project plans (Attachment C).

The project proposes a combination of coverage types including the single-family residence building, 1 Packet Pg. 44

1.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

retaining walls, grading, driveway paving, landscaping plantings, and biodetention swales. In total, the project proposes 6,573.13 square feet or 27.2% coverage. An area totaling 17,576.06 square feet, or

72.8% of the site, would remain undisturbed. Proposed coverage is summarized in the following table:

ITEM SQ. FT.

SHARE OF
SITE
RETAINING WALLS 8.06 0.03%
HOUSE + CONC. PAD 1,604.04 6.6%
DRIVEWAY 1,898.62 7.9%
BIOSWALE 145.57 0.6%
PLANTING AREA 1,823.17 7.5%
NEIGHBOR DRIVEWAY 1,093.67 4.5%
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 6,573.13 27.2%
The only developed property in the vicinity of the project site that is under an identical P-D/HPD zoning classification (upon approval of the requested Rezoning) is the property located immediately to the south at 722 Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-100). That property has at least approximately 7,960 sq. ft. of coverage based on staff measurements of the single-family residence, paving, and landscaped improvements surrounding the single-family residence taken from an aerial photograph. Therefore, the amount of coverage proposed by the applicant would be consistent with but less than that afforded to the property at 722 Talbot Avenue that is in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. In staff’s assessment, the granting of this Variance by the Commission will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated, in particular because the coverage afforded to this project would be less than that afforded to the property located immediately to the south at 722 Talbot Avenue.

The project also requires approval of a Variance because it would not provide the one off-street guest parking space required by PMC Section 9-4.2259(d). As more fully discussed under the findings for approval of Parking Exception PE-191-21, special circumstances applicable to the project site including its topography and surroundings, would cause a strict application of the HPD guest parking requirement to deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. The guest parking requirement is intended to address projects in increments of ten units in size, requiring one guest parking space per 10 dwelling units or fraction thereof. In this instance, the application of the HPD guest parking standard to a project consisting of one dwelling unit is burdensome and would require a greater variance to be granted to the HPD coverage standard to allow construction of the space. Moreover, as already explained in these findings for approval of a Variance, the site is allocated no coverage under the HPD coverage formula and staff recommends approval of a variance for only enough coverage to enable development of one singlefamily residence on the property. While it may be possible for the site to physically accommodate a guest parking space, doing so would require additional coverage under the HPD standards. Providing for additional coverage solely for purposes of a guest parking space would not be desirable in light of the 1 Packet Pg. 45

1.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

stated purpose of the HPD regulations and the coverage restriction. By providing two garage parking spaces, two uncovered parking spaces, and including a long driveway that can be used for guest parking as needed while not technically complying with the minimum dimensions for an off-street parking space, the project would provide sufficient off-street parking facilities for the proposed single-family residential use while also minimizing the amount of variance that would need to be granted under the HPD coverage standard for construction of the project.

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding. (b) That the granting of such variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.

The discussion of findings for the General Plan amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, and Specific Plan, above, describe in detail the favorable aspects of the project design and the compliance with other Pacifica Municipal Code requirements including but not limited to the adopted Design Guidelines. The proposed project, as conditioned, is well designed and compatible with the existing neighborhood in the immediate vicinity.

Additionally, the project prepared a geotechnical investigation to address the ability to safely develop the project on the site, which addresses the hillside safety concerns set forth in the HPD zoning in PMC Section 9-4.2250(b). The geotechnical report is included as Attachment D. The geotechnical report includes recommendations related to site preparation and grading, drainage, drilled pier foundations, shallow foundations, concrete slabs on grade, pavement, lateral earth pressures, and lateral load resistance. These recommendations, in total, would enable safe development of this hillside site in the opinion of the registered professional geotechnical engineer, Alberto G. Masso, who prepared the report. Staff has included a condition of approval that would require compliance with these recommendations.

By requiring compliance with the geotechnical engineering recommendations of a registered professional geotechnical engineer, the project would preserve public health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and would ensure the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.

Additionally, specific to the Variance request from the HPD guest parking requirement, the project would provide sufficient off-street parking facilities for the proposed single-family residential use. The project would provide two garage parking spaces, two uncovered parking spaces, and a long driveway that can be used for guest parking as needed while not technically complying with the minimum dimensions for an off-street parking space. These off-street parking facilities would be consistent with 1 Packet Pg. 46

1.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

those required by the PMC for single-family residential uses not located in the HPD overlay district, which for reference are required by PMC Section 9-4.2818(a)(1) to provide two garage spaces and a minimum of one guest parking space where there is no off-street parking and there is inadequate driveway length to have a parked car. Thus, the project would provide adequate off-street parking facilities and there is sufficient evidence that the project would preserve public health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and would ensure the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding for the project as conditioned.
(c) Where applicable, that the application is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

The project is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as described above in the findings for approval of the Development Plan. Design Guidelines consistency includes but is not limited to Design Guidelines related to Site Planning, Building Design, Landscaping, and Hillside Development. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding for the project as conditioned. (d) If located in the Coastal Zone, that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Local Coastal Plan.

The project site is not located in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the project.

F. Parking Exception (PE-191-21)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2824(a), the Commission shall grant a parking exception in cases of practical difficulties and unusual hardship only upon making the following finding. (a) That the establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in this article as are reasonably possible.

PMC Section 9-4.2818(a)(3) imposes the off-street parking requirement for “[r]esidential projects within the Hillside Preservation District” by requiring that they provide spaces as required by PMC Section 9- 1 Packet Pg. 47

1.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

4.2258. PMC Section 9-4.2259 establishes the following parking requirements for single-family residential development in the HPD:3
• Two covered spaces, plus two uncovered spaces. The uncovered spaces may be incorporated within a parking area shared by spaces for other units; provided, however, in no case shall the total number of spaces so located together be less than the same of the separate requirements for each unit and shall be located no farther than 100 feet from each dwelling unit entrance.
• A minimum of one guest space shall be provided for every ten (10) dwelling units, or fraction thereof.

Based on PMC Section 9-4.2259, the project would be required to provide two covered (i.e., garage) spaces, two uncovered spaces, and one guest space.

The project provides four car parking spaces comprised of two covered spaces within a garage and two uncovered spaces in a surface parking area. The project does not provide a guest parking spaces and is seeking approval of a parking exception to deviate from this requirement. Staff’s assessment is that a parking exception is warranted in this case.

The guest parking requirement in PMC Section 9-4.2259(d) applies a standard for one guest space per 10 dwelling units, or fraction thereof. The proposed project is the smallest unit of residential development possible in the HPD, being only one dwelling unit (a single-family residence). The HPD standards impose the same requirement on projects that may be up to ten times the size of this project. The application of this guest parking standard to a project consisting of one dwelling unit is burdensome and results in a practical difficulty and unusual hardship when considering how to accommodate it on a single development site. By comparison, PMC Section 9-4.2818(a)(1) provides that for most single-family residential construction, only two garage spaces are required and a minimum of one guest parking space is required only where there is no off-street parking and there is inadequate driveway length to have a parked car.

Moreover, as explained in the findings for approval of a Variance, the site is allocated no coverage under the HPD coverage formula and is seeking a variance for only enough coverage to enable development of one single-family residence on the property. While it may be possible for the site to accommodate a guest parking space, doing so would require additional coverage under the HPD standards and would present another practical difficulty and unusual hardship due to the steepness of the site and the absence of basic allowable coverage under HPD.
3 PMC Section 9-4.2818(a)(3) also states that “[r]esidential projects within the Hillside Preservation District” are required to provide spaces as required by PMC Section 9-4.2258, but this appears to be a typographical error as HPD parking standards are in fact codified in PMC Section 9-4.2259. 1 Packet Pg. 48

1.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

By providing two garage parking spaces, two uncovered parking spaces, and including a long driveway that can be used for guest parking as needed while not technically complying with the minimum dimensions for an off-street parking space, the project would be as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 28 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) as is reasonably possible.

Therefore, staff recommends granting the Parking Exception.

5. Public Comments
Staff received one public comment prior to publication of the agenda packet (Attachment E). The comment letter reaches several incorrect conclusions about the proposed project. The project is located within the R-1/B-4/HPD zone and is not seeking removal of the HPD overlay district. Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2256, projects located within the HPD zoning district must reclassify to the P-D zoning district except those zoned A (Agricultural). PMC Section 9-4.2204 provides that the five-acre minimum area requirement for rezoning to P-D shall not apply to the HPD zoning district. The comment letter also incorrectly states that no development may occur when the HPD formula provides for no coverage. As previously discussed in this staff report, there is sufficient basis to approve a variance from the HPD coverage standard to allow reasonable use of the project site consistent with the objectives of the HPD overlay district.

Staff also shared the project materials with the National Park Services (NPS) given the project site’s location adjacent to the Milagra Ridge area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The NPS staff had no comments on the project but did inquire whether the common property boundary with the GGNRA had been verified with a survey. The applicant did survey the property boundary in question as shown in Sheet A-2 of Attachment C.

6. CEQA Recommendation
The project qualifies as a Class 3 categorical exemption as provided in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (a). 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 single-family residence fits within the scope of a Class 3 categorical exemption. Specifically, the project (1) includes one single-family residence; and (2) is located in an area where the Pacifica Municipal Code and General Plan authorizes single-family residential uses. 1 Packet Pg. 49

1.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of an exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the project, as described below:
• Sec. 15300.2(a): There is no evidence in the record that the project will 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 successive projects of the same type in the area would have a significant environmental impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence in the record of any possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The project is not proposed near a scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources.

The provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this project.

Because the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 3 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

7. Staff Summary and Recommendation
The project proposes construction of a two-story residence on a severely constrained site in the City’s Hillside Preservation District. Based on the discussion in this staff report, staff’s determination is that, as conditioned, the project will satisfy all zoning regulations and applicable development standards, except the coverage and parking standards of the HPD, and on balance it will also be, as conditioned, consistent with the Design Guidelines. In staff’s assessment, based on the discussion in this staff report, the project should be granted a Variance and Parking Exception to deviate from the HPD Coverage and Parking Standards as the findings for the granting of the Variance and the Parking Exception can be made in relation to the subject project. The project will also be consistent with the General Plan upon approval of a General Plan amendment.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions in Exhibit B of the Resolution.

B. COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move that the Planning Commission adopts the attached resolution to FIND the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; RECOMMEND City Council approval of General Plan 1 Packet Pg. 50

1.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PC Staff Report
New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110) August 2, 2021

Amendment GPA-100-21 described in Exhibit A to the resolution and enactment of the ordinance described in Exhibit B to the resolution to approve, Rezoning RZ-201-18, and Development Plan DP-79- 18; and APPROVE Specific Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18 and Parking Exception PE-191-21 subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit C of the resolution and, INCORPORATE all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution, Draft Ordinance, and COAs (DOCX) Attachment B - Land Use and Zoning Exhibit (DOCX)
Attachment C - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (PDF)
Attachment E - Public Comments (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 51

1.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Attachment B
Land Use & Zoning Exhibit
City of Pacifica Planning Department
General Plan Diagram
Neighborhood: East Sharp Park
Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Map Diagram
Zoning District: R-1/B-4/HPD (Single Family Residential/B-Lot Size Overlay/Hillside Preservation District)

1.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B - Land Use and Zoning Exhibit (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110)) Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot · PROJECT INFORMATION
A-0
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR

PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 10/14/2020
06 / 30 / 21
JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
TALBOT AVE.

PACIFICA, CA 94044

SAN MATEO COUNTY
APN: 016-270-110

MURPHY RESIDENCE

PROJECT INFORMATION

BUILDING INFORMATION
APPLICABLE CODES:

AERIAL VIEW
OWNER
SITE
570 TALBOT AVE
PACIFICA, CA 94044

MATTHEW MURPHY
R-1/B4 HPD
R3-U
V-B
· A-0 PROJECT INFORMATION
· A-1 NOT USED
· A-2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
· A-3 SITE PLAN
· A-4 GRADING PLAN
· A-4.1 DRAINAGE PLAN
· A-5 LANDSCAPE PLAN
· A-5.1 FIRE HOSE LAY PLAN
· A-5.2 SITE AREAS
· A-6 PROPOSED FLOOR PAN
· A-7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
· A-8 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND AREA CALCULATIONS
· A-9 SECTIONS
· OWNER:
· OWNER'S ADDRESS:
· ZONING:
· OCCUPANCY GROUP:
· BUILDING TYPE:
· 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY STANDARDS
· 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
· ALL OTHER LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS

APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT

VICINITY VIEW

INDEX OF DRAWING

SCOPE OF WORK
· CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A VACANT LOT

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS CRITERIA CALCULATIONS OBSERVATIONS
7 LOT AREA - 24,149.19 SQ.FT
8 AVERAGE SLOPE S=0.00229 X INTERVAL X LENGTH OF
CONTOURS / LOT AREA S=0.00229 X 2 X 6,677.86 FT / 0.5544 = 55.17% PER PMC 9-4.2256 9 COEFFICIENT "C" C= 40- (S²/35) C= 40 - (55.17² /35) = 0 PER PMC 9-4.2256 10 MAXIMUM ALLOW ABLE
AREA TO BE DISTURBED LOT AREA X ( 40-S ^ 2/35) 24,149.19 X 0 = 0.00 SQ.FT PER PMC 9-4.2256 11 MAX FLOOR AREA 2800+12(SQRT(LOT AREA -5000)) 2800 +12 (SQRT(24,149.19-5000)) = 4,460.57 SQ.FT PER PMC 9-4.3201

PROPOSED VS ALLOWED

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS ALLOWED OBSERVATIONS 12 MAX HEIGHT 35'-0" 35'-0"
13 DISTURBED AREA
PER HDP 6,573.13 SQ. FT 0.00 SQ.FT (PER ITEM 4)
14 MAX FLOOR AREA 2,406.80 SQ.FT 4,460.57 SQ.FT
15 GARAGE AREA 425.35 SQ.FT - 16 LOT SIZE 24,149.1900 SQ. FT. 20,000 SQ. FT. 17 MIN WIDTH 174 Ft 100 FT
18 LANDSCAPE
(PLANTING + BIOSWALE) 1,968.74 Sq.Ft. (8.15 %) - 19 MAX COVERAGE (IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAY) 2,992.29 Sq.Ft. (12.39 %) 40%
20 MAX COVERAGE
(STRUCTURE: HOUSE+
CONC. PAD+RET WALL)
1,612.10 Sq.Ft. (6.67 %) 30%
21 LOT COVERAGE 27.21% - 22 FRONT SET BACK 50 Ft 25 FT
23 REAR SETBACK 80.91 Ft 25 FT
24 SIDE SETBACKS 26.49 Ft 15 FT

BUILDING CONDITIONS
ITEM DESCRIPTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS (SQ.FT) OBSERVATIONS 1 LOWER FLOOR AREA 1,101.86
2 MAIN FLOOR AREA 1,304.94
3 TOTAL AREA = 2406.80
4 GARAGE AREA 425.35
5 DECK AREA 457.15
6 FOOTPRINT 1527.2100
· PROPOSED ZONING: PD

1.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

TALBOT AVENUE
SCALE: 1 inch = 16 feet SEPTEMBER 2018

SAN MATEO COUNTY - CALIFORNIA

VACANT LOT ON TALBOT AVENUE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWING)

WATER METER WM

ABBREVIATIONS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)

SANITARY SEWER SSMH

MANHOLE

LAMP HOLE LH

OVERHEAD OHE

POWER POLE PP

ELECTRICAL

ELECTRICAL EM

UTILITY BOXES UB
WV
METER

WATER VALVE

WOODEN POST WP

PGE GAS SIGN GS

SEWER CLEAN OUT SCO
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
A-2 · TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

12.00' 20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18% 1160 1168 1166 1164 1162 1158 1164 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 18% 18.00' 20.00' 12.00' 12.00' 45.00' SETBACK 48.52' SETBACK

32.03' SETBACK 113.62' SETBACK 50.00' SETBACK 1168 1166 11721174 ENTRY 1170 1170 (N)12'-0"

CURB CUT FOR

NEW DRIVEWAY

26.49' SETBACK 80.91' SETBACK GAS LINE 7.87' TO 2 GUEST PARKING CONC. PAD (N) HOUSE J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

SITE PLAN
NORTH
A-3 · SITE PLAN

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) 1170.5 12.00'

20.00'
-0+00 0+10 0+20
0+30
0+40
0+50
0+60
0+70
0+80
0+90
1+00
1+04 ENTRY
1170

6.67%
18%

17.04%
2%

6.67%
TW=1176.00
BW=1170.50
TW=1179.0
BW=1170.5
TW=1181.0
BW=1170.5
TW=1177.8
BW=1170.5
TW=1180.20
BW=1170.5
18%
(N) RETAINING WALL
1160
1168 1166
1164
1162
1158
1164
1170
11721174
1172
1170
1169
18%
1169.5

18.00'

20.00'

12.00'

12.00'
TW=1169.30
BW=1166.28
TW=1171.00
BW=1170.50
TW=1175.2
BW=1172.5
CONC. PAD
1172.83
WATER LINE 5 FT DEEP
(3 FT BELOW FINISH
GRADING AND 2 AWAY

FROM DRIVEWAY
GAS LINE 4'-0" DEEP
AND 3 FEET BELOW

FINISH GRADE
(N) TRENCH

DRAIN SEE
SHEET A-4.1
RIM=1158.87
INV=1158.37
RIM=1162.09
INV=1161.59

PLANTER B

SEE DETAIL
SHEET A-4.1

FOR DETAILS

PLANTER A

SEE DETAIL
SHEET A-4.1

FOR DETAILS

GAS LINE

7.87' TO
2 GUEST PARKING
(N) HOUSE

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
1150
1160
1170
1180 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+03.76

17.04%

6.67%

18.00%

2.00% 6.67%

GARAGE ENTRY
ELEV: 1170.00

DRIVEWAY ACCESS
ELEV:1156
(E) GROUND

FINISH GRADE
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

VOLUME CALCULATION
CUT 222.71 Cu.Yd.

FILL 25.91 Cu.Yd.

NET 196.79 Cu. Yd.

J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21
JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

GRADING PLAN
NORTH
A-4
· GRADING PLAN

PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ALL UTILITIES

SHALL BE VERIFIED TO ENSURE THAT

LOCATION OF RECORDS IS
ACCURATE ON THE FIELD.

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) DS
A
A4.1
C
A4.1
D
A4.1
D
A4.1
D
A4.1
DS
B
A4.1
C
A4.1

CLASS II PERMEABLE ROCK

OR SIMILAR

MUNICIPALITY-APPROVED

MATERIAL

PERFORATED OR SLOTTED SLOPED UNDERDRAIN (SLOPE AT

0.50% MIN.)
WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN.

SEE PLAN FOR CONNECTION
TO C.B. & FOR INVERT ELEVATION
INV:1159.50'
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12 IN/HR SOIL

MEDIA SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX K OF
THE SAN MATEO COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

ELEV:1162.83' ELEV:1162.00' 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF
PLANTING 4" 8"

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12

IN/HR SOIL MEDIA SHALL CONFORM

TO APPENDIX K OF THE SAN MATEO
COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.
6" CONCRETE PLANTER

WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING
MEMBRANE 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF

PLANTING
RIM:1162.50'
FLOW THRU PLANTER TYP "A" DETAIL
3/16" =1'-0"
A
A4.1

CLEANOUT WITH CAP AT

FINISH GRADE
ELEV:1162.83'
A

PLAN VIEW
14' 3'-6"

ROOF DOWNSPOUT

DISCHARGING ON FLOW

THRU PLANTER
PROVIDE A 16x16 ROCKED

PROTECTED AREA IN FRONT OF
INLET USE 4" COBBLES
B

OUTFLOW
10"∅ SOLID PIPE TO

DISCHARGE AT CURB
DRAIN
B

PERFORATED

SUBDRAIN
4"DIAMETER
PERF.PIPE
A 3'

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER SIZE
FLOWTHRU PLANTER "A"

DESCRIPTION TRIBUTARY
AREA

FLAT ROOF

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)
1,559.10

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER
AREA (SQ.FT)
3'-6"X14'-0" 49

TRENCH LENGTHS
"L" 29"
WIDTH
"W" 30"
23"
3 12"
30" 6" 32" 29"
1/4" x 3" "Z" FRAME
REBAR
ANCHOR
TYP. BOLT DOWN STEEL BAR GRATE TRAFFIC OR
PEDESTRIAN RATED. GALVANIZED OR MILL FINISH.

BAR GRATE GRATE HOLD
DOWN BOLT 9" MIN.
9"
MIN. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE COLLAR
BOLT BAR GRATE TO "Z" FRAME PRIOR TO POURING COLLAR TO

ENSURE PROPER
FIT

OPTIONAL

EXTERNAL ALIGNMENT CLIPS

END VIEW

DRAINAGE TRENCH DETAIL
3/16" =1'-0"
C
A4.1

END VIEW
WIDTH
(W)

DRAINAGE TRENCH SCHEDULE
30"

DRAINAGE
TRENCH
B

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)
840.06
LENGTH
(L)
12'-0"
C 872.95 30" 18'-0"
SCALE: NTS

D DRAINAGE OUTLETS
A4.1

PLAN VIEW

DRAINAGE TRENCH

DISCHARGING ON FLOW

THRU PLANTER

OUTFLOW
10"∅ SOLID PIPE TO

DISCHARGE AT

CURB DRAIN
PROVIDE A 16x16 ROCKED

PROTECTED AREA IN FRONT OF
INLET USE 4" COBBLES

PERFORATED OR SLOTTED SLOPED UNDERDRAIN (SLOPE AT

0.50% MIN.)
WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN.

SEE PLAN FOR CONNECTION
TO C.B. & FOR INVERT ELEVATION
INV:1155.50'
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12 IN/HR SOIL

MEDIA SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX K OF
THE SAN MATEO COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

ELEV:1158.00' 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF
PLANTING 4" 8"

SECTION A-A
RIM:1158.50'
FLOW THRU PLANTER TYP "B" DETAIL
3/16" =1'-0"

CLEANOUT WITH CAP AT

FINISH GRADE
A A
B
B
9'-2" 8'-4"
12'-1"
3'-8"

PERFORATED

SUBDRAIN
4"DIAMETER
PERF.PIPE 3'

CLASS II PERMEABLE ROCK

OR SIMILAR

MUNICIPALITY-APPROVED

MATERIAL
B
A4.1
ELEV:1159.58'
ELEV:1158.83'
TW:1159.58'
TW:1158.83'

SECTION B-B
ELEV:1158.83'
ELEV:1160.17' 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12

IN/HR SOIL MEDIA SHALL CONFORM

TO APPENDIX K OF THE SAN MATEO
COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF

PLANTING
6" CONCRETE PLANTER

WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING

MEMBRANE
ELEV:1159.58'
TW:1158.83'
TW:1160.17'

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER SIZE
FLOWTHRU PLANTER "B"

DESCRIPTION TRIBUTARY
AREA

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER
AREA (SQ.FT)
DRAINAGE TRENCH "B"
1,713.01 DRAINAGE TRENCH "C"
60 SEE DETAIL
"B"
· DRAINAGE PLAN
A-4.1
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21
JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
D r a i n a g e P l a n & T r i b u t a r y A r e a s
NORTH

1.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

12.00' 20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18% 1160 1168 1166 1164 1162 1158 1164 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 18% 18.00' 20.00' 12.00' 12.00' 45.00' SETBACK 48.52' SETBACK 113.28' SETBACK 1168 1166 1 7 2 1 2 3 2 6 6 4 4 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 7 7 7 2 7 21 1 7 11721174 ENTRY 1170 1170 7 7 32.03' SETBACK 26.49' SETBACK 80.91' SETBACK 6 2 GUEST PARKING 6 6 6 3 3 7 CONC. PAD (N) HOUSE

LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA
"CANYON GRAY"

COASTAL
SAGEBRUSH 4
ART CAN 1 G
ARB MAR 24"/36
BOX
SAL LEU SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA 15 G

ERIGERON GLAUCUS DAISY ERI GLA
"POINT REYES"
POINT REYES 5 G

TEC CAP TECOMARIA CAPENSIS HONEYSUCKLE
CEANOTHUS X "BLUE
JEANS"

BLUE JEANS

CALIFORNIA
LILAC
CEA BLU 15 G 1235
SYMBOL 67
ABBREV CONT.

ARBUTUS "MARINA" ARBUTUS
MARINA
PURPLE
SAGE
SEASIDE 1 G

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-U

BEARBERRY ARC POI
CAPE 5 G
NUMBER 8

AREA TO REMAIN IN

NATURAL CONDITIONS

DROUGHT

TOLERANT

COASTAL

COMPATIBLE

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

LANDSCAPE PLAN
NORTH
A-5 · LANDSCAPE PLAN

1.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 272.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 300.0' 12.00' 20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18% 1160 1168 1166 1164 1162 1158 1164 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 18% 18.00' 20.00' 12.00' 12.00' 45.00' SETBACK 48.52' SETBACK

32.03' SETBACK 113.62' SETBACK 50.00' SETBACK 1168 1166 11721174 ENTRY 1170 1170 26.49' SETBACK 80.91' SETBACK

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM TURNAROUND
DIST: 150.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 272.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM TURNAROUND
DIST: 150.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 300.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 272.0'
2 GUEST PARKING
CONC. PAD
(N) HOUSE
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

FIRE HOSE LAY PLAN
NORTH
A-5.1 · FIRE HOSE LAY PLAN

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) 1170.5 12.00' 20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 ENTRY 1170 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18% 1160 1168 1166 1164 1162 1158 1164 1169 18% 1169.5 18.00' 20.00' 12.00' 12.00' 2 GUEST PARKING

SITE AREAS
ITEM AREA (SQ.FT.) COLOR CODE
RETAINING WALLS 8.06
HOUSE + CONC. PAD 1,604.04
DRIVEWAY 1,898.62
BIOSWALE 145.57
PLANTING AREA 1,823.17
NEIGHBOUR DRIVEWAY 1,093.67
DISTURBED AREA 6,573.13
UNDISTURBED AREA 17,576.06
CONC. PAD
(N) HOUSE 1172 1170 11721174 1170
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

SITE AREAS
NORTH
A-5.2 · SITE AREAS

1.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) 1 1 3 3 FF AA CC BB EE 2 2 DD 1 1 3 3 FF AA CC BB EE 2 2 DD

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
14'-0"x13'-6"
1173.00
BEDROOM #3
13'-0"x15'-0"
BEDROOM # 2
20'-0"x20'-0"
1170.00
GARAGE
7'-9"x5'-0"
BATH
13'-0"x6'-1"
BATH
CLOSET

UNDER STAIRS
1170.00
1170.00
1173.00
12'-0"x13'-6"
BEDROOM # 1
1170.00

MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REF.
20'-10"x12'-10"
1179.83'

DECK OVER GARAGE
25'-0"x20'-0"

LIVING ROOM
1180.00'
DN
1180.00'
15'-9"x13'-6"
FAMILY ROOM 12'-10"x2'-6" CLOSET
17'-6"x12'-10"

KITCHEN
A-9 A-9 A A A-9 A-9B B
9'-10" 14'-3" 1'-8"
75'-3"
22'-10" 11'-11" 8'-5"
75'-3" 13'-11" 6'-11" 20'-10" 20'-10"
A-9 A-9 A A A-9 A-9B B
11'-9" 14'-5"
9'-10"
75'-3" 13'-11" 6'-11" 20'-10"
13'-5"
7'-9"
20'-5"
75'-3" 20'-10"
4'-9" 3'-6"
1170.00
1180.00' 1182.00' CLOSET HCL=9'-0"
HCL=9'-0" HCL=8'-0" 13'-6"x2'-7"
HCL=10'-0"
HCL=10'-0" HCL=10'-0"
D01 D02 D03 D05
D05 D09
W03 W04 W06
W03 D09 D11
D10 DN7 (T) @11" 8 (R) @ 6"
19'-8"x5'-0"
1181.83'
DECK
19'-6" 16'-2" 3'-6" 5'
9'-10"
16 (R)@ 7.5"
15 (T) @11"
16 (R)@ 7.5"
15 (T) @11"
D04
D05
W04 W01 W01
16'-2"x5'-0"
PATIO
W02 1172.83 W05 W05
D05 D07 CLOSET 9'-7"x3'-8" D07 CLOSET 8'-1"x3'-8"
D06

WASHER DRYER
9'-5"x3'-1"
CLOSET
D05
12' 4'-6"
24'-7" D08 W07
6'-1"x8'-0"
BATH
1182.00'
W08 3'

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR - DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGTH TYPE DESCRIPTION
D01 15'-0" 7'-0" Garage - D02 3'-0" 7'-8" Hinged - D03 2'-6" 6'-8" Hinged Solid Core D04 8'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - D05 2'-6" 6'-8" Hinged - D06 5'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - D07 6'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - LOWER LEVEL FLOOR - WINDOWS SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
W01 6'-0" 4'-0" Fix - W02 8'-0" 5'-0" Sliding Egress

MAIN LEVEL FLOOR - DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGTH TYPE DESCRIPTION
D08 2'-6" 6'-8" Hinged - D09 10'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - D10 8'-0" 8'-0" Sliding - D11 8'-0" 8'-0" Sliding - MAIN LEVEL FLOOR - WINDOWS SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
W03 4'-0" 8'-0" CS
W04 8'-0" 4'-0" Sliding - W05 4'-0" 6'-0" Fix - W06 8'-0" 5'-0" Sliding Egress W07 4'-6" 2'-0" Fix - W08 4'-0" 1'-8" Fix --
W03 W03 W03
CS: CASEMENT
D05
5(R)@ 7.5"
4(T)@11"
D05
3'-7"x3'-1"
CLOSET
ENTRY
HCL=9'-0"
UP
UP
18'-5"x5'-0"
1169.83'
DECK
D04
19'-3"
W03 W03 W03 W03 2'-7"
W02.1
W02.1 2'-0" 1'-4" Fix
W03

PROJECTION

OF DECK
ABOVE
3'
3'
42"
guardrail 1182.00'
D09 10'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - W04 8'-0" 4'-0" Sliding -
4 (R) @ 6"
3 (T) @11"
11' -
4'-5" 4'-9"
20'-10" 3'-8" 1'-8" 3'-5"
3'-8" 13'
1'-8"
9'-5" 4'-5"
1'-8"
3'
3'
1173.00 · FLOOR PLANS
A-6
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) B
A9 1

2.2 1

2.2 11
11 8 5 4 8
11 8 2 5 4

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING
GROUND
11 4
W04 W03 W03 W03 W03
D10
D04
D04 W04
W02

RETAINING
WALL
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 10' 1' 10" 15'-10" 4'

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
DECK
1179.83'
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 35' 11'-2"
1179.00'
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 10' 10"
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83' 2' 2" 10"

2.2 2.2

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

2.2 2.2

3.1 3.1

3.1 2.1 2.1 2 2 3 3
10 E:\jce-proyectos\2018-02-06_Pacifica_Vacant Lot Talbot Ave\2021\JCE-NIC\01-27-2021\PDF Images\01-27-2021- TALBOT-PLANING SETbc4dac7e.png B A9 1

2.2 11 8
11 11 11 9

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3

2.13 3.1
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
1179.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83'
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00' 10' 1'-10" 26'-5" 9'

EXISTING
GROUND
W02.1
D02
W03 W03 W03 W03 W03
W03 W08
W08

RETAINING
WALL 2'-7" 2'
TOP OF PLATE 1 1'
1170.00'
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'

GARAGE LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 3' 10' 1' 10" 23'-10" 9'
DECK
1181.83'

2.2 2.2

2.1 2.1 2 2

2.1 2.1 6 7
10 10
10 3
(N) ROOF
(N) ENTRY DOORS
(N) WINDOWS 14 6 3 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 8 2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 1608 CONTEMPORARY

EXTERIOR DOOR
SIMPSON DOOR 7 (N) GARAGE DOOR

MODERN STEEL AND GLASS

JDT GARAGE DOOR
7' X 14'
ELEVATION LEGEND5 (N) SLIDING DOOR

VINYL WINDOW

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE
(EXTERIOR FINISH)

2.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS

2.2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SHASTA WHITE LRV55
BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT

APPLICATION WITH WOOD

OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE
D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3
1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH
OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS.

IPE SIDING

MARVIN EXTERIOR DOOR
GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED
COLOR: SUEDE(EXTERIOR FINISH) 9 GARAGE DOOR VENTS
3 PLY CLASS B BITOUMINOUS
ROOFING OVER FOAMULAR 600
(ASTM C578) EXTRUDED

POLYSTYRENE RIGID FOAM

INSULATION TO PROVIDE SLOPE
OF 2% MIN. SEE ROOF PLAN ON
SHEET A-02 OVER 1/2" CDX
PLYWOOD.
10 (N) WINDOW

VINYL WINDOW-SAFETY
/TEMP-GLAZED

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE

ATLANTIS RAIL SYSTEM -

STAINLESS STEEL RAILING

SYSTEMS
(N) GUARDRAIL
2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION

AIR OPENING AT THE

BOTTOM SECTION OF
THE GARAGE DOOR.
#546 SAND DOLLAR LRV 70 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER.

PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2"
ABOVE PAVED AREAS.
#1092 GOLDEN SAFARI
LRV 65 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE
3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF
4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED
AREAS.

3.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SLATE

SHALE STONE
11 (N)EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE

VONN LIGHTING
LOW-VOLTAGE 5-WATT BLACK

OUTDOOR INTEGRATED LED

WALL MOUNT SCONCE
FINISH: MATT BLACK
MATERIAL: ALUMINUM WITH UV

PROOF POWDER COATING
DIFFUSER: POLYCARBONATE
CRI:90
LUMENS:357
WATTS:5W
VOLTS:120 AC · ELEVATIONS
A-7
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A
A9 2 3 4
11 11

EXISTING
GROUND 2 8 8 5 4 4
11 8 10"
W05 W05
W01 W01
D11

RETAINING
WALL
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
DECK
1179.83'
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 35' 11'-2"
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 10' 10"
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83' 2' 2" 10"

2.2 2.2

2.2 2 4

RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A
A9

2.2 2 4
11 11 8 4 8
W07 W06 3
1170.00'
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'

GARAGE LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 3' 10' 1' 10" 23'-10" 9'
DECK
1181.83'

2.2 2.2

2.1 3.1 3

LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A B C D E
20'-5" 18'-5" 16'-2"
72'-3" 20'-10"
20'-5" 10'-5" 13'-9" 27'-8"
72'-3" 20'-10" G
2'-11"
G' F
14'-4" 5' 1'-6"3'-6" 3'-11" 16'-11"
DN
UP

MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" M
12'-10" 19'-6" 4'-9"
75'-3" 20'-10"
12'-10" 22'-10" 11'-11" 27'-8"
75'-3" 20'-10"
2'-11" 16'-2" 5' H I J N
4'-5" K14'-8" L 1'-6" 16'-11"
3'-6"
78'-9"

LOWER FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT) B 40.84 C 409.02 D 53.85 E 576.14 F 22.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 1101.85
GARAGE (A) 425.35
PATIO (G) 80.83
DECK (G') 91.47

MAIN FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT) H 476.01 I 201.52 J 576.14 K 29.25 L 22.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 1304.92 M 267.36 N 98.33
TOTAL DECK AREA 365.69
(N) ROOF
(N) ENTRY DOORS
(N) WINDOWS 14 6 3 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 8 2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 1608 CONTEMPORARY

EXTERIOR DOOR
SIMPSON DOOR 7 (N) GARAGE DOOR

MODERN STEEL AND GLASS

JDT GARAGE DOOR
7' X 14'
ELEVATION LEGEND5 (N) SLIDING DOOR

VINYL WINDOW

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE
(EXTERIOR FINISH)

2.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS

2.2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SHASTA WHITE LRV55
BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT

APPLICATION WITH WOOD

OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE
D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3
1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH
OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS.

IPE SIDING

MARVIN EXTERIOR DOOR
GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED
COLOR: SUEDE(EXTERIOR FINISH) 9 GARAGE DOOR VENTS
3 PLY CLASS B BITOUMINOUS
ROOFING OVER FOAMULAR 600
(ASTM C578) EXTRUDED

POLYSTYRENE RIGID FOAM

INSULATION TO PROVIDE SLOPE
OF 2% MIN. SEE ROOF PLAN ON
SHEET A-02 OVER 1/2" CDX
PLYWOOD.
10 (N) WINDOW

VINYL WINDOW-SAFETY
/TEMP-GLAZED

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE

ATLANTIS RAIL SYSTEM -

STAINLESS STEEL RAILING

SYSTEMS
(N) GUARDRAIL
2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION

AIR OPENING AT THE

BOTTOM SECTION OF
THE GARAGE DOOR.
#546 SAND DOLLAR LRV 70 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER.

PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2"
ABOVE PAVED AREAS.
#1092 GOLDEN SAFARI
LRV 65 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE
3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF
4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED
AREAS.

3.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SLATE

SHALE STONE
11 (N)EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE

VONN LIGHTING
LOW-VOLTAGE 5-WATT BLACK

OUTDOOR INTEGRATED LED

WALL MOUNT SCONCE
FINISH: MATT BLACK
MATERIAL: ALUMINUM WITH UV

PROOF POWDER COATING
DIFFUSER: POLYCARBONATE
CRI:90
LUMENS:357
WATTS:5W
VOLTS:120 AC · ELEVATIONS · AREA CALCULATIONS
A-8
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) GARAGE

SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10' CL
CRAWL SPACE 1'-6" CRAWL SPACE
BATH 8' CL
1170.00'
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'

GARAGE LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 9' CL 3' 10' 1' 10" 23'-10" 9'

CRAWL SPACE

EXISTING
GROUND

MACHINE ROOM

UNDER STAIRS

LIVING ROOM KITCHEN
DECK
1181.83' 10' CL
WASHER DRYER 1'-6" 9' CL
BATH

CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE
CLOSET
CLOSET
CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE 1'-6"
CLOSET
FAMILY ROOM 10' CL
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
DECK
1179.83'
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 27'-9" 3'-11"
1179.00'
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 1' 10' 10"
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83' 2'
BEDROOM #1 10' CL 9' CL

SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ENTRY
CRAWL SPACE 9' CL 1'-6"CRAWL
SPACE

EXISTING
GROUND

LIVING ROOM
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 29'-9" 7'-9"
1179.00'
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 1' 10' 10"
1169.83

DECK LEVEL
W03
D02 · SECTIONS
A-9
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment C - Project Plans (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

1.d
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.d Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

SUTTTTIT DNGINDDRING
- General Civil Engineering.
- Land Surveying, Parcel Maps, Subdivisions.
- Storm Drain, Sanitary Sewer Design.
- Hydrology and Creek Protection Studies.
- Grading Drainage Plans.
- Soil Reports.
5855 Castle Drive
Oakland, CA 94611
Tel: (510) 842-8064
Fax: (510) 482-5848
[email protected]
Matthew Murphy, Owner
570 Talbot Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
September 19th, 2018
Re : Geotechnical Report for the Property at722 Talbot Avenue, Pacifica, California.

Dear Sir / Lady :

The attached geotechnical report is based on a detailed engineering study of the above property by the undersigned, where a new residence is planned in the near future.

We conclude that from a geotechnical standpoint, the land is suitable for the proposed construction, provided that our recommendations are implemented and good building practices are followed.

As in every hillside topography in a seismically active region, special concerns for this site include the potential hazards of seepage, seismic shock and differential foundation movement. Therefore, we ask that this report be carefully studied and taken into account for the engineering design which is to follow.

Upon request, we will review foundation plans, and inspect earthwork construction and foundation installation on a regular basis while the work is performed. We will also discuss construction procedures, and field changes if needed in a Final Report.

Please feel free to contact us at anytime in the future if there are questions about this report, or we may be of further service.

Sincerely,
461-lI
I
Al G. Masso
GE-2089

1.d
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR

THE NEW RESIDENCE AT
722 TALBOT AVENUE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
FOR

MATTHEW MURPHY, OWNER
570 TALBOT AVENUE
PACIFICA, CA 94044

SUMMIT ENGINEERING
5855 CASTLE DRIVE
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94611
SEPTEMBER 19,2018

1.d
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Report Summary.

Recommendations.......... ,..'...'.. 5
A. Site Preparation and Grading... .".'...... 6
B. Drainage......... ..'... 6
C. Drilled Pier Foundations.... ..'..-......".7
D. Shallow Foundations......... .. ..'.... I
E. Concrete Slabs on Grade. .".10
F. Pavement .........'......"'11
G. Lateral Earth Pressures '..".'."-.11
H. Lateral Load Resistance.......... ..-.12
Limitations ........"13
References.............. .....'...'.....""13
Appendix '....."...'..""'15
Figures.... '...'16
Boring Logs... "..24

1.d
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

REPORT SUMMARY
The present geotechnical study can be summarized as follows :
- The subject site is a vacant parcel of land in the hills of Pacifica, California. The owner plans to build a new single family residence.
- The site's native configuration consists of a 0- to 2-foot layer of gravelly silt colluvium layer underlain by weathered bedrock rapidly becoming denser, stronger with depth. - Ground water was not found during drilling. The potential for seismic liquefaction is small.
- The nearest active fault is the San Andreas Fault located 1 mile NE of the site.

The site is outside the San Andreas Fault Special Studies Zone. - The proposed structure should have all down-spouts collected and extended to discharge safely near the paved road area, or in an appropriate dissipation area. - The new foundations will consist of concrete, drilled piers with a minimum of 16 inches of diameter and minimum length of 8 feet for the primary structure and 6 feet for secondary structures (decks, stairs, etc.) respectively. Final pier depths must be determined in the field by the project geotechnical (soils) engineer. - Retaining walls may be designed by pier / footing combinations, or footing / keyway combinations.
lt

1.d
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

INTRODUCTION
This report compiles the results of an investigation of the soil and geologic conditions of a site in the hills of the Sharp Park District, in the City of Pacifica,, San Mateo County.

The site's address isT22TalbotAvenue, Pacifica, California. The parcel has 23,900 square feet (ft2), 0.55 acres, of surface area (Figures 1 and 3).

PROPOSED CONSTRUGTION
The current owner plans to build a new one- to two-level, single-family residence. The proposed structure will rest on pier foundations that will be embedded in Hard bedrock.

Grading will include the building of the new foundation, excavate retaining walls, and to provide drainage and runoff disposal.

SGOPE
The scope of this investigation included:

1. A geologic reconnaissance of the surrounding area;

2. A review of geologic maps and reports relevant to the site;

3. Drilling of three soil borings, and collecting representative soil samples; and

4. Laboratory testing for soil plasticity, and the correlation of penetration resistance with shear strength.

SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION
The site has a quadrilateral shape located at the higher, eastern end of Talbot Avenue.

The proposed building site is located on a northtrending, down-sloping terrain. There is abundant, native brush vegetation in the proposed building site (Figure 3).

GEOLOGY
Geologic maps covering the area (Ref. 1a, Figure 24) indicate that the lot lies within Franciican Greenstone (fg)of the Jurassic / Cretaceous Periods, consisting of basaltic, volcanic rocks including flows, pillow lavas, breccias, and tuffs in different proportions; generally un-bedded, but sometimes indistinctly bedded. Commonly fractured at close ipacing or moderate spacing. Where fresh, the rocks are gray to gray-green in color.

Where fractures are closely spaced, fresh rocks are firm to hard. Where fractures are moderately spaced, fresh rocks are hard. Weathering commonly reaches 10 to 30 feet, and someiimes 50 feet. Weathered rocks are orange-brown or shades of red- brown.

Local land stability maps (Ref. 2) show the site to have medium to high susceptibility to seismic landslides. The official San Mateo County Map of Geotechnical Hazards (Ref. 3, Figure 28) show the subject site in Zone 1 1 with indications of 'poor to good' slope stability,'good' earthquake stability, and'good' foundation conditions.

1.d
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Local seismic fault maps show the site outside the San Andreas Fault Zone and 1 mile SW of the nearest San Andreas Fault trace. The seismically-active, NW-trending Seal Cove Fault is mapped 7 miles SW of the site. Although considered inactive, a number of geologic faults are mapped nearby in the peninsula. Such are the Pilarcitos, San Mateo Faults, etc. There is also a number of active faults in the East Bay. The Hayward, Calaveras, and Concord Faults are located 21 miles NE, 30 miles ENE, and 33 miles NNE of the site, respectively (Figure 2C).

FIELD INVESTIGATION
Field investigation consisted of a detailed site inspection and sub-surface exploration, both conducted on September 1Oth, 2018. During the detailed site inspection,, the site topography and structure condition were examined. No signs of soil settlement, movement, sliding, or any soil instability were noticed at the site or in adjacent home.

Subsurface exploration consisted of drilling three soil borings (B-1 to B-3) at the locations shown in Figure 3. The borings were drilled to refusal by continuous sampling. A 140-lb hammer was used to perform penetration tests using the standard 2- inch sampler. The standard ASTM blow-count "N'r value was obtained as the blowcount for the last 12 inches of penetration. The 2.5-inch and 3-inch diameter Modified California samplers were also used. Their blow-counts were converted to standard Nvalues by using the corresponding contact-area ratios.

SOILS
Soil borings B-1 to B-3 encountered a 0- to 2-foot thick sandy/gravelly silt colluvium layer underlain by soft, weathered bedrock rapidly becoming denser, stronger with depth to Hard consistency below 2 feet. For engineering purposes, the following layers will be considered :
0- 2 feet, Very Stiff to Hard, gravelly colluvium, its resistance will be disregarded; 2- 6 feet, soft weathered sandstone of Hard consistency; > 6 feet, Hard, Dense weathered bedrock.

No groundwater was encountered during borehole drilling. Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are shown on the boring logs in the Appendix. The boring logs show subsurface soils at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan in Figure 3. At the building site, shallow soils are silty in nature with low plasticity, and likely a low to nil expansion potential.

SEISMICITY
The lot is located in the San Francisco Bay Area which is considered to be one of the most seismically-active region of the United States. The nearest active fault and also

1.d
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot the likely producer of the control-ling seismic event is the San Andreas Fault which is mapped 1 mile NE of the site. The seismically-active Seal Cove Fault is mapped 7 miles SW of the site. Although considered inactive, a number of geologic faults are mapped nearby in the peninsula. Such are the Pilarcitos, San Mateo Faults, etc. There is also a number of active faults in the East Bay. The Hayward, Calaveras, and Concord Faults are located 21 miles NE. 30 miles ENE, and 33 miles NNE of the site, respectively (Figure 2C).

All of these faults are currently exhibiting creep movements and micro-seismic activity, and are capable of generating major earthquakes with the capacity for widespread damage to both man-made and natural structures. Major Bay Area earthquakes last occurred on the Hayward, San Andreas and Calaveras Faults in the years 1868, 1989 and 1861, respectively. Other small faults are mapped in the immediate area, although none are associated with any seismic activity or considered active.

Although it is not yet possible to accurately predict when and where an earthquake will occur on the basis of current technology, it is reasonable to assume that, during its useful life, the proposed structure will suffer at least one moderate to severe earthquake. During such event, the danger from fault offset through the site is remote, but strong shaking of the site is likely to occur.

Because of site soil profile and topography, seismic liquefaction appears to be unlikely.

However, soil slumping or surface sloughing could occur on ground slopes due to the strong shaking of a major seismic event, particularly if soils are saturated.

Foundations built on competent strata, although may suffer some damage, should perform satisfactorily during a strong event. In addition, wood-framed buildings are generally flexible enough to sustain some seismic deformations with minor or moderate structural damage. An effective surface and sub-surface drainage will contribute to maintain higher shear strength, and hence stable slopes.

Additional 2016 California Buildino Code Seismic Parameters.

The CBC requires the determination of the ground response acceleration curves for seismic design (Ref. 13). In our case, the existing soil profile may be classified as a B site type, i.e. ' Rock'. Site coordinates are 37.634261 deg N, 122.478464 deg W (NAD27) and the USGS spectral curves are shown in the following page. The proposed building will have a ll occupancy category, and because Sd1 = 0.737 g < 0'750 g, the building will also have an D seismic design category.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field and office studies, it is our opinion that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed new residential unit,

1.d
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot E[ISE$ Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title
Building Code Reference Document
Site Coordinates
Site Soil Classification
Risk Category
baly eitv
'.;il r'!i,,L'
ilit i,if: i,iil;
722 Talbot Ave, Pacifica CA
ii.; ii:::i::i-:tt;ei .11,,2a)1? )r'.:1 -i:; t..:'ia.

ASCE 7-10 Standard
{r..,hrr:-] riiiiiu e: U'iii'!i h,:.:ar': 1ii'r; ali.;iiti.rl.: l: 'lijt-1il

37.634260N, 727.478460W
SiteClassB-"Rock"

I/IIIIII
Facifit.a. ffi g
J
:i
.-l
.-+.
/ -'f
lla*larq "''.'€
-.
r5trlatl* €sn FraB'6i*co

15.rrn grutto
' +,,.'..li];'.1::j,
It,l. *,t1';;1
r;ilfbi'** .: -,.
,,
Burlirtrhasne
.l* t lijlateq
A-. itr;: Fl, 'r. ,il ,'. 1r, :, :
;l i:i d; r
. lro*ta{ity
USGS-Provided OutPut
g' = 2-307 g

5. = 1"106 g
S,r= = 2-307 g
Sn: = 1'106 g
Sos = 1.538 g
So. = A.737 g
For inforrnabon on how the SS and 51 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. h{f *.. r ttru prltlr'.^$ lr*rl rrl r$
IJJ
| 1l
:t
. l'
tsi
1, 1.1, il
lirri|d- "[ lgt;
For PGA*, T., C*. and C", values, please vieLthe detailed report. l - I' l+
h'ri*J. I r*t;
4 $r*;iqrr illt$ t]i'nri'F,5 [FFfl ru! tn

1.d
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed structure.

To minimize differential settlements. and provide oreater seismic stabilitv, the new foundations must consist of concrete drilled pier and grade beam systems with at least a 4-foot embedment in dense bedrock. This will require pier lengths of at least 8 feet for the primary foundation and 6 feet for secondary structures (decks, stainvays, etc.) from the oriqinal qround surface if no cuts are made. lf cuts are made, the required pier lengths will result from using the given soil parameters to support the required loads.

Foundations for primarv retaining walls in cuts reaching bedrock may consist of drilled piers/ footing systems or keyways/ footing systems. The pier foundation must be designed and built to provide adequate vertical and horizontal restraint. The vertical restraint will be provided by combined skin-friction and end-bearing effects. The horizontal restraint will be provided by passive bedrock resistance.

Ground shaking will be the major cause of earthquake damage. The controlling seismic event will be produced by the San Andreas Fault. The maximum credible event on the Peninsula Branch of the San Andreas Fault would have a M7.1 on the Richter Scale.

Because of sloping topography, the site may be vulnerable to seismically triggered land slippage, particularly if a strong shaking occurs during the wet winter months. Special drainage recommendations are given to this effect. Furthermore, the building period for a one-level structure may fall within range of maximum spectral values, and therefore, the structure will be subject to high base shear and high shear stresses. Seismic USGS spectral values for design are shown in the previous page.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for the successful completion and maintenance of the project. Because the recommendations are partly general and partly specific to certain items of concern identified above, recommendation implementation should be discussed with SUMMIT ENGINEERING, including :
- Review the foundation, grading, and drainage plans prior to construction. - Update this report if necessary because of observed changes or delays. - Inspect the excavation operations, particularly those for drilled pier foundations; the placement of fill and backfill materials; and the installation of surface drains and sub-drains behind retaining walls. - Prepare a Final Soils Engineer's Report that indicates whether construction was done according to expected soils characteristics, or new features were encountered which required special engineering considerations.

These recommendations are contingent upon SUMMIT ENGINEERING being allowed to

1.d
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot inspect and test the grading work, drainage work, and foundation construction. This will allow comparison of the exposed subsurface soil conditions with those assumed in preparation of this report.

A. Site Preparation and Grading
The area of the proposed improvements should be cleared and stripped so sufficient depth to remove any obstructions, debris, and all surface vegetation. lf any obstructions (such as tree root systems) are removed below the planned finished grades, the resulting holes should be backfilled and compacted with approved materials. Grading excavations should be conducted during the dry season (April '15 through October 15).

Due to low plasticity characteristics of shallow soils, on site materials below topsoil may be used as fill or backfill materials. Any imported fill used at the site should be a nonexpansive soil with a plasticity index of 12 or less. All fill and backfill materials placed at the site should not contain rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in their greatest dimension, with not more than 15 % larger than 2.5 inches.

Permanent cuts in soil and all fills should be no steeper than 2(H):1(V), and preferably 3(H):1(V) or flatter wherever practical. Temporary cuts into hard colluvium or bedrock may be made as steeply as 0.5(H):1(V) or even vertical if the soil remains dry. lf rains are foreseen we recommend the shoring of cuts. Owner and contractor should be familiar with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, including current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

All sub-grade surfaces that will receive fill, should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned wet of optimum, and compacted to the requirements given below.

All structural fill and backfill materials placed at the site should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction by mechanical means only, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D1557-70. In addition, structural fills (including wall backfills) equal or greater than 5 feet in thickness should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction over their full depth. All new fills should be keyed into compact materials and compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in un-compacted thickness.

Any new cut slopes, and any slopes disturbed by construction operations, should be planted to minimize sloughing and erosion (Ref. 14). All finished grades should slope at least2o/o in such a manner that surface water will not run over exposed slopes or collect against obstructions. For other grading details, refer to the CBC (Ref. 13).

B. Drainaqe
Attention must be given to both surface and subsurface drainage at this site. Lowplasticity soils may suffer erosion, and must be protected by a carefully planned

1.d
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot drainage system to avoid water percolation near the foundations. No concentrated water should be allowed to run over any prepared slope. Rough and finish grading should be planned to prevent any ponding of water on the surface, except that a safe sediment pond may be necessary if grading is done during the winter.

Either three- or four-inch, rigid, perforated pipe sub-drains with cleanouts should be placed behind retaining walls. Perforated pipes should be surrounded with at least one cubic foot per linear foot of free-draining material consisting preferably of clean, uniform, 1-inch to 2-inch gravel or crushed rock. Sub-drains should outfall on paved areas as far away from the house as safe; they may be connected to the storm drains. Do not introduce surface runoff into perforated sub-drains (Figs 4,5).

Finished ground surfaces must be sloped away from foundation walls. Slope runoff should be intercepted behind retaining walls by installing perimeter swales that empty into small catch basins for proper disposal. Runoff must not be allowed to collect and pond anywhere on the site. Crawl spaces beneath floors can collect seepage if the rough interior grade is lower than the finish grade around the outside.

Roof runoff should also be directed away from foundations. Do not allow down-spouts to deposit runoff where it can saturate foundation soil. All down-spouts should be connected by solid pipe and allow to discharge, ideally, onto paved surfaces or into city storm drains. lf this is not possible, storm runoff should be dissipated on site using a dissipation area shown in Figure 44. Notice that 6-inch to 12-inch boulders or rock fragments may be used for rip-rap. Notice also that the 4-inch dissipation T- pipe must be built perfectly level for gentle water dissipation downslope.

Installation and operation of automatic sprinkler systems must be carried out carefully so as not produce excessive amounts of water. Further, irrigation either manual or automatic should be kept to a minimum. Landscaping should consist of drought and fire resistant species of trees and bushes.

House maintenance should include annual flushing with a garden hose of all sub-drains, catch basins and down-spout piping. lf any pipes become clogged, they should be cleared and kept operational. Likewise, ground surfaces should be maintained to promote good drainage and to prevent erosion and foundation soil saturation.

C. Drilled Pier Foundations
Drilled, friction piers should have a minimum diameter of 16 inches. Piers should penetrate the Hard, weathered bedrock, with a minimum pier length (measured from the original ground elevation) of 8 feet and 6 feet for primary and secondary elements respectively. Use the following summary table for pier design :
7 1.d
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Table 1 - Soil Parameters for Foundation Design
Soil Skin Friction Pullout Pass Resist. Bearing
Depth (ft) Charact. (psfl Resist.(psf) (pcfl(*) Pres.(ksf) 0 Shallow Soils
Disregard 0 0 0
Gravelly Colluv.

Soft, Weathd. Bedrock 600 300 400
Hard, Weathd.

Bedrock 700 350 600
where (") means applied to 1.5 pier diameters, and the allowable bearing pressure, qa, inside the Hard bedrock mass is given by :
qa=5(1+0.1 (L-6)) ksf
and L - pier length (ft) below the original ground
When embedded in Hard bedrock, and provided that the pier boreholes will be clean from all debris. piers may be designed to account for the end-bearing effect, with an allowable bearing pressure of 5 kips per square foot, plus 10 %o per foot of penetration starting from the depth of 6 feet below the ground surface, to a maximum of 15 ksf for dead plus live load, with a one-third increase for all loads including wind or seismic. lf the end-bearing effects are added, the total pile capacity will be calculated as follows :

Pier capacity = 56"tt resistance + Tip resistance / 3 (for lengths > 6 ft) The following pier capacities have been calculated to facilitate foundation design. For given pier spacings, and hence pier loads provided by the structural engineer, pier lengths may be obtained quickly from this table :
5+
I

1.d
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Table 2 - Vertical Pier Capacities in kips (1 kip = 1,000 lbs) L (ft)
681012141618
12 18 25 31 37 43 50
14 21 28 35 42 49 57
where:

D = Pier diameter in inches
L = Pier length (ft) below original ground
Pier Construction
Piers must be installed deeply enough to gain fixity at their bottoms in order to act as vertical cantilever beams. Fixed-end action at pile ends may be assumed for structural design. All piers must be tied together with tie beams or grade beams. The spacing of the piers should be determined by the Structural Engineer, but pier center{o-center spacinq should not be closer than five pier diameters. Pier foundations become more efficient when usinq fewer, widely spaced piers.

Pier holes should be dry and reasonably free of loose cuttings and falling debris prior to installing reinforcing steel and pouring concrete. Some of the pier holes may encounter different soil conditions that assumed thru their design depths; such piers will be evaluated individually at the time of construction.
ln addition, care must be taken during the pier hole drilling operation to verify that pier holes reach the underlying Hard bedrock, and that boulders or locally unconfined rock outcrops are avoided. Pier boreholes should not be left un-poured over 24 hours and by no means over 48 hours.

D. Shallow Foundations
Primary retaining walls may be designed using piers for vertical and horizontal (passive) loads supplemented by short footings of, say, 2 to 4 feet to provide a rigid bending joint at the base of the wall. Design footings for the following parameters :

D
(in)
12 16
I

1.d
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Table 3 - Soil Parameters for Shallow Foundations
Depth of Allowable
Cut (ft) Pressure (psf)
Keyway Passive
Pressure (pcf)

2.O

4.0 > 6.0
2,000
3,000
4,000
Alternatively, retaining wall foundations may also be designed using footing / kevwav combinations. Keyways may use passive resistance of Table 3 above. The allowable bearing pressures may ne used for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase for all loads including wind and seismic. The allowable bearing pressures are net values; therefore, the weight of the footings can be neglected for design. Footino friction resistance in rock is oiven by 0.4 x actinq verticalforce includinq dead weiaht and it mav be used in addition to passive resistance.

Retaining walls should be sub-drained with perforated pipes and densely backfilled prior to framing. Retaining walls behind living spaces should also be water-proofed. All foundation bearings must be reasonably dry and free of cuttings or falling debris prior to installing steel bars and pouring concrete.

E. Concrete Slabs on Grade
Framed wood flooring is preferable for the living areas of buildings. However, where slabs are to be used, the following is recommended :

A minimum of 4 inches of crushed rock should be used between compacted subgrade and concrete slabs. Any over-excavated sub-grade should be filled with densely compacted crushed rock or other non-expansive fill material. A plastic membrane under the slab may be used as local vapor barrier. The membrane should be placed over 2 inches of sand over the crushed rock. Post-tensioned slabs may not need vapor barriers if the concrete is permanently in compression.

Concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced, at least with No 3 re-bar at 16-inch spacings. Exterior slabs, garage or carport slabs, and driveways may be free-floating and Jeparate from foundations. Weakened-plane expansion joints should be made in exposed, non-structural slabs at about 1O-foot intervals. Reinforcing should be continuous through expansion joints.

Concrete walks should be reinforced concrete over sand or gravel. lf truck traffic passes over concrete walks, they should be 6-inch reinforced slabs over 6 inches of rock. Similar concrete pads should be placed wherever a debris box or a trailer storage is anticipated.
10 0
400
500

1.d
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot F. Pavement
The customary driveway section consists of a 4-inch, reinforced- concrete slab as described above, or a 2-inch cover of plant-mixed asphalt. (A thicker "engineered" RValue design can be prepared upon request). Either pavement should be placed over at least 4 inches of CalTrans Class ll Aggregate Base rock.

Install pavement according to standard construction practices such as CalTrans Standard Specifications, Sections 16, 19, 26, and 39. Compact the subgrade to 95% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) at a moisture contenl of 2o/o over optimum moisture, and then rock tack, and pave immediately to keep the soil from drying and subject to swell or heave the following winter. Base rock should be CalTrans Class ll aggregate, asphalt should be plant-mixed Type B. Base rock should also be compacted to 95% and tacked. Asphalt should be sealed after paving.

G. Lateral Earth Pressures
Back-drained retaining walls must be designed for the following active soil pressures :

Wall Type Active. P ressu re(pcf-efi,v)*
Unrestrained, Slope < 4:1 40
Unrestrained, Slope < 2:1 50
Unrestrained, Slope < 1.5:1 60
Restrained Add an additional uniform lateral pressure of 5 x H (psf), where H = height of backfill above retaining
wall foundation in feet.
(") Pounds per cubic foot-equivalent fluid weight
- A 30% pressure increase should be used for shoring design. - For unrestrained walls, add an additional uniform pressure equal to one-third the maximum surcharge load applied to the wall backfill.
- For restrained walls this additional uniform design pressure should be one-half the maximum surcharge.
- For seismic lateral pressures on retaining walls over 6 feet tall, add 30 pcf for flexible walls and 40 pcf for stiff retaining walls for the wall portion hisher than 6 feet. For seismic analysis may increase soil parameters by 1/3.

The above pressures assume that sufficient drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface and subsurface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by a sub-drain system consisting of 3- or 4-inch diameter perforated pipes bedded in free-draining material (Figure 5).

The free-draining material should consist of clean, uniform, 314- to 2-inch gravel or 11 1.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot drain rock, it should be wrapped with a synthetic filter fabric, and it should be placed behind the wall with at least 1 foot of thickness and should extend to within 2 feet of finished grade (See Section A for backfill placement and compaction). Compaction of wall backfill should be conducted in such a way that will not damage the wall. The upper 1 foot of backfill should consist of compacted on-site or imported clayey materials Retaining walls behind non-livinq spaces should have a wall drainage system including conventional drain material (such as Miradrain), and a sub-drain installed as a "drainage burrito" (i.e., perforated pipe, gravel, and filterfabric, preferably Mirafi 140 NC or equivalent). The perforated sub-drain pipes should be connected to a system of closed pipes that discharges in the paved street gutter or appropriately in the backyard areaBesides being provided with proper sub-drains, all retaining walls behind livino spaces must be thoroughly water-proofed, preferably by hot-mopping, or better yet, with sealing synthetic membranes such as PermaSeal, Bituthene, Miradri, HLM 5000, or equivalent.

Waterproofing is an art. Therefore, it is recommended to engage an experienced waterproofi ng contractor.

Lined surface ditches must be provided behind any wall collecting ground surface drainage. The ditches should be sloped to drain to suitable discharge facilities. The top of the walls should extend at least 6 inches of free board above the ditch in order to retain minor erosion or sloughing materials.

Construction equipment and transport vehicle surcharqes or loads from upper retaininQ walls should also be anticipated in design. Construction specifications should provide for adequate concrete curing time before allowing the backfill to be compacted. The walls can be supported on either pier/ footing combinations, or footing/ keyway combinations, designed to take bending stresses in accordance with the recommendations presented under Section C, "Drilled Pier Foundations" and Section D, "Shallow Foundations". Lateral load resistance can be developed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section H below.

H. Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads on piers may be resisted by equivalent passive pressures (See Table 1) :

Between 0 and 2 feet, use 0 Pcf-efw;
Between 2 and 6 feet, use 400 Pcf-efw;
Below 6 feet, use 600 pcf-efw to a max. value of 9,000 psf.

Passive resistance of drilled piers will be calculated by applying passive stresses on 2 pier diameters. Lateral loads on footings in rock may be resisted by friction, with a friction coefficient of 0.4 times x actins vertical force including dead weiqht and it maY be used in addition to passive resistance.
12 1.d
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot We recommend that the factor of safety against sliding and overturning for all retaining walls be at least 1.5. When calculating the weight of soil on the portion of the protruding wall footing where backfill will be placed to resist over-turning forces, an imaginary line at an inclination of 10 degrees from vertical can be used starting at the top of the wall footing. Backfill materials can be assumed to have a unit weight of at least 12O pcf .

LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented herein are based on the soil conditions revealed by our test borings and laboratory procedures according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied.

It must be understood that for this report to be valid, the owner should ensure that necessary steps are taken to carry out the recommendations of the report in the field.

Any added risk incurred by the choice of alternative construction methods which depart from our recommendations will be borne by the owner. Further, this report must not be construed as any guarantee or insurance against any type of soil failure.

The recommendations in this report are general in nature and are subject to adoption or revision as the construction circumstances warrant. We should be notified for supplemental recommendations should unusual situations be encountered during construction' We may be consulted for supplemental advice, or to provide assistance in interpreting our findings and recommendations, or to inspect various aspects of construction.

Our recommendations are valid as of the present time. However, future conditions may change conditions due to legislation, improvement of engineering knowledge, natural process, or man's works. Therefore, this report is subject to review and its validity may decrease with the passage of time.

Finally, careful design and construction cannot guarantee that damage will not occur if a disaster strikes. Disaster may strike, for instance, in the form of either a destructive landslide, or a significant, nearby earthquake. The owner alone undertakes such risk, and therefore, the owner should obtain home insurance if available against earthquake and landslide damage.

REFERENCES
1a. USGS (Brabb and Pampeyan), 1983, Geologic Map of San Mateo County, Miscel. lnvest. Series, Map l-1257-4.
1b. USGS (Graymer, et al), 2006, Geologic Map of San Francisco Bay Region, 2006'

2. USGS (Wieczorek, et al), 1985, Map Showing Slope Stability During Earthquakes in San Mateo County, California.
13 1.d
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

3. Leighton & Associates, Geotechnical Engineers, and The San Mateo County Planning Department (1976), 'San Mateo County Official Map of Geologic Hazards'.

4. State of California, 1982, Revised Official Map, Special Studies Zone.

5. USGS (Stover, et al), '1990, Preliminary lsoseismal map for the Santa Cruz (Loma Prieta) California Earthquake of 10-18-89, Open File Report 90-18.

6. California Division of Mines & Geology (Hart), 1976, Fault Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42.
7 . USGS (Borcherdt), 1975, Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region, Professional Paper 941-A..

8. USGS (Herd), 1979, SeismicZonation of the San Francisco Bay Region, Circ. 807.

9. Seed & ldriss, 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

10. USGS,2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF); Prepared by the 2OO7 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, USGS Open File Report 2OO7 -1437 .

11. American Society for Testing Materials, Annual Standards.

12. Topographic and Boundary Survey by J.C. Engineering, September, 2018.

13. California Building Code, 2016 Edition.

14. ABAG,2016, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.

15. SUMMIT ENGINEERING (2OO4), Geotechnical Report for the Proposed Residence at 300 Coral Ridge Drive, Pacifica, California, April 28, 2OO4.

16. SUMMIT ENGINEERING (2006), Geotechnical Report for the Proposed Addition to the Residence at 1419 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California, January 5, 2006.

17. SUMMIT ENGINEERING (2008), Geotechnical Report for the Proposed Addition to the Residence at 139 EssexWay, Pacifica, California, October 12, 2OO8.

18. SUMMIT ENGINEERING (2O11), Geotechnical Report for the Proposed Residence at Parcel 55, Bay View Road, Pacifica, California, March 9, 2011.

19. SUMMIT ENGINEERING (2012), Geotechnical Report for the Proposed Residence at323 Farallon Avenue, Pacifica, California, SeptemberT, 2012.

20. SUMMIT ENGINEERING (2018), Geotechnical Report for the Property at 1028 Manzanita Drive, Pacifica, California, September 11, 2018. 14 1.d
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

APPBVDTX
SUM!{IT EITGIITEEIIIilG

1.d
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot sHAHp PARK i
BEACH .i & i.,
PHoMEN+P#d.

LIBRAHY:*-

PALMETTO
MINI PARK i
{F*N Ffi Af'tC ISCO'MUt{ietFAL}
AHCHERY tF RlttGE
:

SHARP PARK
..i ,': - " :" :l l
j-::: l :
- ::

FIGI.JRE I . SITE LOCATION

SUIIITIT ENCINNDIIING

1.d
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot rl
" "rtG.:i -:-jd$
3$\
r
iiriliill
':--:*^{:=i
f-:,**,
TIGTIRE ZA - REGTONAL GEOI.OGY
SUIt[ilIT EIUGIilEER'ING

1.d
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
\T
Ref. San Mateo County Official Map
of ceologic Hazards (1973)
nl Scaler1E2rO00
FTGURE 2'# - REGIONAL LAND STABTLIfi
SUIU l+{XT Eff {}I ilIOER.I Iry G

1.d
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

6.5 e 6.9*
NAPA o
o
2 o2f
<\
o
rt .4 7l
,.O
7e6
.u
'.O
NOVATO ,9

AN BAFAEL
*
coNcoRL)

6. O*
'.lDtC
t-1tlf

1.$
o
2 o
\..- --.-'* P R O J ECT S lT E
SAN MA
Ref. ! Ca1if. Div. of Mines and Geology (1976)
(* ) = I,lost Probable Maqnitude or
Maximum Credible Earthquake
I
1 FIGURE 2E'- ACTIVE FAULT ZONES
SUIIIIUIT NilGINEEn'ING

1.d
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

LANDS OF RODKTY
2008 -070075
APN 01 6-470-070
712 CANYON DR.

PAC FICA
s 89' 57' 16"E I
I
I
I
o
o
N
a

LANDS OF
ALFREDO MONTANO Jr.

APN 016-270-110
UN]TID STATES OF
A[4ERICA
MII.ACRA R DGI
(GCNRA)
APN 016-460 020
GRAPHIC SCAM 16031632A4 ffi
I Fm1
-
---l
t-.t =.,s it,'-'._

LANDS OF NOCON
2004-233142
6511 0 R. 2J0
APN 016-270-190
.F*EF !!tLa4 -
LEGEND

LANDS OI PERA
2005-0cJ002
7584 0.R, J94
APN 016 270-100
722 TALBOT AVE.

PAC F CA
I
riD=ori Borrng 8-1 | location

SITE PLAN AND SOTL BORING

LOCATIONS
FIGURB 3 -
SUMIITIT ENGINEER.ING

1.d
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot ROO}' DRAIN
lfm(;. lVAl,t,
COtrII'ACTEI)

CL'I,YEY SOIL
I' MIN
SEAL

CONNECT ALL DOWNSPOUTS
AND CATCH tsASINS TO

SOUD PIPE

BUILDING DRATN (NTS)

CAPPED 'CLEAN-OUI
FLUSH ANNLIALLY \
/.-1" #oyiut- RIGID PIPE

MIN SLOPE

4. I
cLEANoUT DETAIL (NTS)
FIGURE 4
SUMMIT

SUBDRAIN DETAILS

ENGINEERING

1.d
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot TI
I
I
>3'
t
_J_
+- >,
FJGTTRE 4* - DrssrPATroN AREA
SUIII?IIT EilGINEERING
I
storm 3'#' ----fL

PLAN VTEW
Ferfect1y 4" 6 pvc
LeveJ- Perf. Pipe
Concrete
T i !!r -i r!r -^rv
SECTION A_A
tt tt 6 12 Boulders
or Equivalent

1.d
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot ld' I t
ro b'/L rr il
HOLES DOWNT2% MIN SLOPE
t
\ coupAcrED IJ.\cxl'rLL .--,
4'' PERFORATED RIGID PIPE \ 1 T
\,{tN
lrf"rtp-uRtrtE" 3 A r l 3tl" to 2" cEll/ruN/E " c< / on RouNb efr*vt L 4ool 4l
ol
oo . a I
al I AI
€
6- I
cl -.-_-_-_A
:'_J
t2" UiN
FIGURE 5 - RTTAINING WALL DETAILS
SI.IMMIT ENGINEERING

1.d
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot rc,EgTtrkr. Leoeo3 3gg1pi1a 6*l DATe 'e/!e/ ?liti,!
P3CLECy NAf€ l{ew Si-ngle .Fani!-y Residence
f.g.ATKSg GtlL OEFfi+ N. E, 72"2 'T.albot Avenueo Fac-i f ica CA DRIJJIIG f€f}fiE : ' : 'cofitinuous Se!Rplingr140-1b Haraner I|ONJ E[Af,*3.5 in DRnllNG CONfnAgTOR Aeeee€ ori1ting co'
Ee
o
2 4
6 E
o
2 4
6 I
il.9 r Fad Encq*nd
[ 3-ta saqrl'e
S sri sergc fr
I crsb urph
Z.'5-Ln.
sample
NOTES:

Gf dl"r-$;i1,**r], sancly:, grar.'e1.l-v soi I
ai:ui"rdant rock fraqnientse cii:1,
i1e.d . Dense, Har<1
weat-he::eci sancistorre,/ shak:n lrei1J-o'*' ;vhiiti-sli, povieirlr, r,1r,'-,.. V. irer-:se Hatrri
safie as ai:over iirtht-<;ra_v-ish,
weaLliered sanclst,/slialcr dl:-i'.'\r.
i)ense r H.: rd
scf ler rnateri;r1 ai topn roci< frag*
ler: Ls " Denser . ll.rrC
bacx io rse:atherecl i:,*Cruck, dry,
lroi+dr:r_:;. V. De;-lse; V. flard
L0 feet
ST'M$ilIT ENCII{EERING
5855 Cas'fle Drive
Oakland, CA 94611

1.d
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot P&Egf ftr laoeo3 rcg16 rfl B-: 0ATE 'e/ie/ :01-:

P3AECTilAI& lfew SingJ-e .Family Residenc€
!00Andit 722 zatu.ot Avenue, Paci-fica cA GwL D€Pfl* ti.E.

DRIJ.SIG l€fHCp: .
' : '.ConLinuous Sirnplingrrl40-Ib ltarer llOL€ ttlAlf3.S in DR[.lJlrl(i CONInAgfOR Acees€ Dsif'liltE co.

Ee
o
2 4
6 I
o
2 4
6 I
2 llf. r l$d, Encanetrd
[ 3-la saEple
N seisryrge fr
I GreD serrqte

2.'9-Ln
sample
grarrelly sancl 3 dr,v'n lighl gr.ri.'r in si 3t,-.r- natrix" stif i - abr,l.:lctnnt rock f:-aqr,enls, \rr€lath€:r€)
berlroek. V. lfense. ilard
sair.e as above, weathereci berlrock. c1iyl porr'der,v. Y. I)ense.l . Harc{

ST'MMITENGINEERING
5855 Casge Drive
oakland, cA 94611

1.d
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot PnO.€CT t{o, I B oe o 3 30m\F ib, B* 3 DATE '{}/L2l .i01r FROJECTIIAHS New Singtre .Fami.ly Residence
IOAIT$r& 6:WLDEFft tir.E, ?22 Talbot Avenue' Pacifica cA DnilJNC f€f}XC* : '' : .Cotrtinuous Sa.qrplingrrl40-Ib Hamer Hq-E ElAl't3.5 in D8ITJJ}.IC CONTRA TOR Acxless Dri].1ing Co.

Ee
o
2 4
6 I
o
-t
a,
4 5
8 4
ll,E r Not Sneal**td
il 3-1n ssntrle
N sri sempc il
I €rao samph
2;5-Ln
sanple
abundant rock fracgmenLs, ,gr*y e*d
liqht yel1or+ish*J:rown. \.' ; Dense
Haro
same weatLrered bedrock as abcven dry, powderiro abundanb rt-ick frErnLs V. Dense. i{ard BOH = 4 feet

SI'MMIT ENGINEERING
5855 Castle Drive
Oakland, CA 9&11

1.d
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment D - Geotechnical Report (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot  Pacifica, CA 94044  Tel  www.beausoleil-architects.com DATE: June 27, 2021
TO: Tina Wehrmeister, Planning Director/Assistant City Manager Christian Murdock, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Talbot Avenue project, APN 016-270-190
Dear Ms. Wehrmeister and Mr. Murdock,
Thank you for sharing the drawings for this project Mr. Murdock. Are there other application materials that were not shared? For example, the drawings indicate a Fire Hose Lay Plan which is not in the set. As the driveway is too steep for fire trucks, it is essential to understand if the maximum hose lengths are met for fire fighting compliance. Also, a diagram showing disturbed area calculations is missing.

The notice in the Tribune says this project is applying for a variance from HPD, but the coversheet notes the HPD zoning being completely removed, and the site rezoned from A/B4 with an HPD overlay to P-D with no HPD. I am very confused as to how this is possible.
1) The Growth Control Ordinance says agricultural zoned properties cannot be rezoned without a vote of the people. See below.

Sec. 9-5.07. - Agricultural land.

In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning conversion of agriculturally zoned land to urban uses, to preserve the right of the local electorate to vote on significant zoning matters and to insure that development proposed for agricultural lands is appropriate to its unique character and importance, through June 30, 1997:
(a)
All land within the City which is zoned or designated Agricultural District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned or redesignated, and the "B" district with which the Agricultural District is combined may not be changed, without a vote of the people 2) The Growth Control Ordinance also says HPD zoned properties cannot be rezoned without a vote of the people. See below.

Sec. 9-5.08. - Hillside protection.

In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning development of sensitive hillside lands, in order to preserve areas of open space where possible and to retain natural terrain by encouraging the concentration of dwellings and other structures on their sites, to help protect people and property from potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides, and to insure that development is compatible with the unique hillside resources of Pacifica, through June 30, 1977:
(a)
All land within the City which is zoned or designated Hillside Preservation District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned out of the Hillside Preservation District without a vote of the people.

1.e
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment E - Public Comments (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot  Pacifica, CA 94044  Tel  www.beausoleil-architects.com 3) A zone change to P-D seems a stretch for a single-family home, but if you do allow it, it seems that there are a lot more documents required as part of the submission as noted in section 9-5.08. 4) I understand that there might be an argument to allow something to be built here when the HPD coverage calculations for an average lot slope of 55% show nothing can be built. As previously requested, it would be helpful to understand how the planning department and city attorney are interpreting the statement in article

22.5,
“It is the intent of this section to allow the reasonable use of hillside lands consistent with the objectives of this article in such a manner so as not to be confiscatory." 5) While the average lot slope is about 55%, the slope where the building is proposed to be located is close to 100%. Shouldn't a geotechnical report be prepared as part of the planning review process? I want to remind you that the HDAI report that informed the 1983 Safety Element specifically calls for new landslide maps to be prepared, which to my knowledge still have not been done. Can you tell me if there is an update forthcoming as part of the new General Plan drafts?
This section of the Safety element notes that USGS maps are not adequate for the types of landslides Pacifica is prone to.

1.e
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment E - Public Comments (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

1.e
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment E - Public Comments (4695 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

1.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (except Attachment A) - August 2, 2021 (4863 : New single5.dPacket Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot

1.d
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Renderings from Select Vantage Points (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project:

1.d
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Renderings from Select Vantage Points (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

1.d
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Renderings from Select Vantage Points (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

1.d
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Renderings from Select Vantage Points (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

1.d
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Renderings from Select Vantage Points (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot

5.d
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 :
· PROJECT INFORMATION
A-0
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR

PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 10/14/2020
06 / 30 / 22
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
TALBOT AVE.

PACIFICA, CA 94044

SAN MATEO COUNTY
APN: 016-270-110

MURPHY RESIDENCE

PROJECT INFORMATION

BUILDING INFORMATION
APPLICABLE CODES:

AERIAL VIEW
OWNER
SITE
570 TALBOT AVE
PACIFICA, CA 94044

MATTHEW MURPHY
R-1/B4 HPD
R3-U
V-B
· A-0 PROJECT INFORMATION
· A-1 NOT USED
· A-2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
· A-3 SITE PLAN
· A-4 GRADING PLAN
· A-4.1 DRAINAGE PLAN
· A-5 LANDSCAPE PLAN
· A-5.1 FIRE HOSE LAY PLAN
· A-5.2 SITE AREAS
· A-6 PROPOSED FLOOR PAN
· A-7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
· A-8 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND AREA CALCULATIONS
· A-9 SECTIONS
· OWNER:
· OWNER'S ADDRESS:
· ZONING:
· OCCUPANCY GROUP:
· BUILDING TYPE:
· 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY STANDARDS
· 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE
· 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
· ALL OTHER LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS

APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT

VICINITY VIEW

INDEX OF DRAWING

SCOPE OF WORK
· CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A VACANT LOT

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS CRITERIA CALCULATIONS OBSERVATIONS
7 LOT AREA - 24,149.19 SQ.FT
8 AVERAGE SLOPE S=0.00229 X INTERVAL X LENGTH OF
CONTOURS / LOT AREA S=0.00229 X 2 X 6,677.86 FT / 0.5544 = 55.17% PER PMC 9-4.2256 9 COEFFICIENT "C" C= 40- (S²/35) C= 40 - (55.17² /35) = 0 PER PMC 9-4.2256 10 MAXIMUM ALLOW ABLE
AREA TO BE DISTURBED LOT AREA X ( 40-S ^ 2/35) 24,149.19 X 0 = 0.00 SQ.FT PER PMC 9-4.2256 11 MAX FLOOR AREA 2800+12(SQRT(LOT AREA -5000)) 2800 +12 (SQRT(24,149.19-5000)) = 4,460.57 SQ.FT PER PMC 9-4.3201

PROPOSED VS ALLOWED

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS ALLOWED OBSERVATIONS 12 MAX HEIGHT 35'-0" 35'-0"
13 DISTURBED AREA
PER HDP 6,577.73 SQ. FT 0.00 SQ.FT (PER ITEM 4)
14 MAX FLOOR AREA 2,406.80 SQ.FT 4,460.57 SQ.FT
15 GARAGE AREA 425.35 SQ.FT - 16 LOT SIZE 24,149.1900 SQ. FT. 20,000 SQ. FT. 17 MIN WIDTH 174 Ft 100 FT
18 LANDSCAPE
(PLANTING + BIOSWALE) 1,723.56 Sq.Ft. (7.14 %) - 19 MAX COVERAGE (IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAY) 3,242.07 Sq.Ft. (13.42 %) 40%
20 MAX COVERAGE
(STRUCTURE: HOUSE+
CONC. PAD+RET WALL)
1,612.10 Sq.Ft. (6.67 %) 30%
21 LOT COVERAGE 27.23% - 22 FRONT SET BACK 50 Ft 25 FT
23 REAR SETBACK 80.91 Ft 25 FT
24 SIDE SETBACKS 26.49 Ft 15 FT

BUILDING CONDITIONS
ITEM DESCRIPTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS (SQ.FT) OBSERVATIONS 1 LOWER FLOOR AREA 1,101.85
2 MAIN FLOOR AREA 1,304.92
3 TOTAL AREA = 2406.77
4 GARAGE AREA 425.35
5 DECK AREA 457.15
6 FOOTPRINT 1527.2000
· PROPOSED ZONING: PD

1.e
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

TALBOT AVENUE
SCALE: 1 inch = 16 feet SEPTEMBER 2018

SAN MATEO COUNTY - CALIFORNIA

VACANT LOT ON TALBOT AVENUE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWING)

WATER METER WM

ABBREVIATIONS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)

SANITARY SEWER SSMH

MANHOLE

LAMP HOLE LH

OVERHEAD OHE

POWER POLE PP

ELECTRICAL

ELECTRICAL EM

UTILITY BOXES UB
WV
METER

WATER VALVE

WOODEN POST WP

PGE GAS SIGN GS

SEWER CLEAN OUT SCO
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
A-2 · TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.e
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18%
18% 19.00' 20.00' 12.00' 45.00' SETBACK 48.52' SETBACK

32.03' SETBACK 113.62' SETBACK 50.00' SETBACK ENTRY 1170 (N)12'-0"

CURB CUT FOR

NEW DRIVEWAY

26.49' SETBACK 80.91' SETBACK GAS LINE 7.87' TO CONC. PAD (N) HOUSE 15.38'19.00' 9.00' 2 GUEST PARKING 1 GUEST PARKING 1168 1166 1164 1170 11721174 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 1160 1162 1158 11.18' 12.52' J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

SITE PLAN
NORTH
A-3 · SITE PLAN

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.e
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) GAS LINE 7.87' TO 1 GUEST PARKING
1170.5 15.38'20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 ENTRY 1170 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% TW=1176.00
BW=1170.50
TW=1179.0
BW=1170.5
TW=1181.0
BW=1170.5
TW=1177.8
BW=1170.5
TW=1180.20
BW=1170.5
18%
(N) RETAINING WALL
1168 1166 1164 1170 11721174 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 1160 1162 1158 18% 19.00' 20.00' 12.00' TW=1169.30
BW=1166.28
TW=1171.00
BW=1170.50
TW=1175.2
BW=1172.5
CONC. PAD 1172.83
WATER LINE 5 FT DEEP
(3 FT BELOW FINISH
GRADING AND 2 AWAY

FROM DRIVEWAY
GAS LINE 4'-0" DEEP
AND 3 FEET BELOW

FINISH GRADE
(N) TRENCH

DRAIN SEE
SHEET A-4.1
RIM=1158.31
INV=1157.81
RIM=1162.09
INV=1161.59

PLANTER B

SEE DETAIL
SHEET A-4.1

FOR DETAILS

PLANTER A

SEE DETAIL
SHEET A-4.1
FOR DETAILS 2 GUEST PARKING
(N) HOUSE

19.00' 9.00'
(N) TRENCH

DRAIN SEE
SHEET A-4.1

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
1150
1160
1170
1180 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+03.76 17.04%

6.67%

18.00%

2.00% 6.67%

GARAGE ENTRY
ELEV: 1170.00

DRIVEWAY ACCESS
ELEV:1156
(E) GROUND

FINISH GRADE
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

VOLUME CALCULATION
CUT 217.80 Cu.Yd.

FILL 26.21 Cu.Yd.

NET 191.59 Cu. Yd.

J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

GRADING PLAN
NORTH
A-4 · GRADING PLAN

PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ALL UTILITIES

SHALL BE VERIFIED TO ENSURE THAT

LOCATION OF RECORDS IS
ACCURATE ON THE FIELD.

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.e
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) DS
A
A4.1
C
A4.1
D
A4.1
D
A4.1
D
A4.1
DS
B
A4.1
C
A4.1

CLASS II PERMEABLE ROCK

OR SIMILAR

MUNICIPALITY-APPROVED

MATERIAL

PERFORATED OR SLOTTED SLOPED UNDERDRAIN (SLOPE AT

0.50% MIN.)
WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN.

SEE PLAN FOR CONNECTION
TO C.B. & FOR INVERT ELEVATION
INV:1159.50'
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12 IN/HR SOIL

MEDIA SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX K OF
THE SAN MATEO COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

ELEV:1162.83' ELEV:1162.00' 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF
PLANTING 4" 8"

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12

IN/HR SOIL MEDIA SHALL CONFORM

TO APPENDIX K OF THE SAN MATEO
COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.
6" CONCRETE PLANTER

WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING
MEMBRANE 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF

PLANTING
RIM:1162.50'
FLOW THRU PLANTER TYP "A" DETAIL
3/16" =1'-0"
A
A4.1

CLEANOUT WITH CAP AT

FINISH GRADE
ELEV:1162.83'
A

PLAN VIEW
14' 3'-6"

ROOF DOWNSPOUT

DISCHARGING ON FLOW

THRU PLANTER
PROVIDE A 16x16 ROCKED

PROTECTED AREA IN FRONT OF
INLET USE 4" COBBLES
B

OUTFLOW
10"∅ SOLID PIPE TO

DISCHARGE AT CURB
DRAIN
B

PERFORATED

SUBDRAIN
4"DIAMETER
PERF.PIPE
A 3'

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER SIZE
FLOWTHRU PLANTER "A"

DESCRIPTION TRIBUTARY
AREA

FLAT ROOF

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)
1,559.10

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER
AREA (SQ.FT)
3'-6"X14'-0" 49

TRENCH LENGTHS
"L" 29"
WIDTH
"W" 30"
23"
3 12"
30" 6" 32" 29"
1/4" x 3" "Z" FRAME
REBAR
ANCHOR
TYP. BOLT DOWN STEEL BAR GRATE TRAFFIC OR
PEDESTRIAN RATED. GALVANIZED OR MILL FINISH.

BAR GRATE GRATE HOLD
DOWN BOLT 9" MIN.
9"
MIN. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE COLLAR
BOLT BAR GRATE TO "Z" FRAME PRIOR TO POURING COLLAR TO

ENSURE PROPER
FIT

OPTIONAL

EXTERNAL ALIGNMENT CLIPS

END VIEW

DRAINAGE TRENCH DETAIL
3/16" =1'-0"
C
A4.1

END VIEW
WIDTH
(W)

DRAINAGE TRENCH SCHEDULE
30"

DRAINAGE
TRENCH
B

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)
1608.26
LENGTH
(L)
20'-0"
C 426.25 30" 18'-0"
SCALE: NTS

D DRAINAGE OUTLETS
A4.1

PLAN VIEW

DRAINAGE TRENCH

DISCHARGING ON FLOW

THRU PLANTER

OUTFLOW
10"∅ SOLID PIPE TO

DISCHARGE AT

CURB DRAIN
PROVIDE A 16x16 ROCKED

PROTECTED AREA IN FRONT OF
INLET USE 4" COBBLES

PERFORATED OR SLOTTED SLOPED UNDERDRAIN (SLOPE AT

0.50% MIN.)
WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN.

SEE PLAN FOR CONNECTION
TO C.B. & FOR INVERT ELEVATION
INV:1155.50'
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12 IN/HR SOIL

MEDIA SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX K OF
THE SAN MATEO COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

ELEV:1158.00' 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF
PLANTING 4" 8"

SECTION A-A
RIM:1158.50'
FLOW THRU PLANTER TYP "B" DETAIL
3/16" =1'-0"

CLEANOUT WITH CAP AT

FINISH GRADE
A A
B
B
10'-3" 8'-7"
11'-4" 3'-9"

PERFORATED

SUBDRAIN
4"DIAMETER
PERF.PIPE 3'

CLASS II PERMEABLE ROCK

OR SIMILAR

MUNICIPALITY-APPROVED

MATERIAL
B
A4.1
ELEV:1159.58'
ELEV:1158.83'
TW:1159.58'
TW:1158.83'

SECTION B-B
ELEV:1158.83'
ELEV:1160.17' 18" OF SMMWW 12 in/hr
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 18" SMMWW 12

IN/HR SOIL MEDIA SHALL CONFORM

TO APPENDIX K OF THE SAN MATEO
COUNTRY C.3 STORMWATER
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

OVERFLOW RISER WITH
GRATE 10" DIAMETER
6"-INCH ABOVE LOW POINT OF

PLANTING
6" CONCRETE PLANTER

WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING

MEMBRANE
ELEV:1159.58'
TW:1158.83'
TW:1160.17'

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER SIZE
FLOWTHRU PLANTER "B"

DESCRIPTION TRIBUTARY
AREA

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)

FLOWTHRU

PLANTER
AREA (SQ.FT)
DRAINAGE TRENCH "B"
2,034.51 DRAINAGE TRENCH "C"

63.13 SEE DETAIL
"B"
· DRAINAGE PLAN
A-4.1
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22
JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
D r a i n a g e P l a n & T r i b u t a r y A r e a s
NORTH

1.e
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18% 18% 19.00' 20.00' 12.00' 45.00' SETBACK 48.52' SETBACK 113.28' SETBACK 1 7 2 1 2 3 2 6 6 4 4 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 7 7 7 2 7 21 1 7 ENTRY 1170 7 7 32.03' SETBACK 26.49' SETBACK 80.91' SETBACK 6 2 GUEST PARKING 6 6 6 3 3 CONC. PAD (N) HOUSE 1168 1166 1164 1170 11721174 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 1160 1162 1158 1 GUEST PARKING

LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA
"CANYON GRAY"

COASTAL
SAGEBRUSH 4
ART CAN 1 G
ARB MAR 24"/36
BOX
SAL LEU SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA 15 G

ERIGERON GLAUCUS DAISY ERI GLA
"POINT REYES"
POINT REYES 5 G

TEC CAP TECOMARIA CAPENSIS HONEYSUCKLE
CEANOTHUS X "BLUE
JEANS"

BLUE JEANS

CALIFORNIA
LILAC
CEA BLU 15 G 1235
SYMBOL 67
ABBREV CONT.

ARBUTUS "MARINA" ARBUTUS
MARINA
PURPLE
SAGE
SEASIDE 1 G

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-U

BEARBERRY ARC POI
CAPE 5 G
NUMBER 8

AREA TO REMAIN IN

NATURAL CONDITIONS

DROUGHT

TOLERANT

COASTAL

COMPATIBLE

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

LANDSCAPE PLAN
NORTH
A-5 · LANDSCAPE PLAN

1.e
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 272.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 300.0'

20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18%
18% 19.00' 20.00' 12.00' 45.00' SETBACK 48.52' SETBACK

32.03' SETBACK 113.62' SETBACK 50.00' SETBACK ENTRY 1170 26.49' SETBACK 80.91' SETBACK

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM TURNAROUND
DIST: 150.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 272.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM TURNAROUND
DIST: 150.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 300.0'

FIRE HOSE LAY

FROM HYDRANT
DIST: 272.0'
2 GUEST PARKING
CONC. PAD
(N) HOUSE
1168 1166 1164 1170 11721174 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 1160 1162 1158 1 GUEST PARKING 15.38' J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

FIRE HOSE LAY PLAN
NORTH
A-5.1 · FIRE HOSE LAY PLAN

GAS LINE INSTALLED PER EASEMENT

TO PG&E DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
772451 RECORDED ON PAGE 480
VOLUME 2630

1.e
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) 1170.5

20.00' -0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+04 ENTRY 1170 6.67% 18% 17.04% 2% 6.67% 18% 18% 19.00' 20.00' 12.00' 2 GUEST PARKING

SITE AREAS
ITEM AREA (SQ.FT.) COLOR CODE
RETAINING WALLS 8.06
HOUSE + CONC. PAD 1,604.04
DRIVEWAY 2,148.40
BIOSWALE 148.71
PLANTING AREA 1,574.85
NEIGHBOUR DRIVEWAY 1,093.67
DISTURBED AREA 6,577.73
UNDISTURBED AREA 17,571.46
CONC. PAD
(N) HOUSE
1168 1166 1164 1170 11721174 1172 1170 1169 1169.5 1160 1162 1158 J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
10/14/2020 PLANING SET
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206NEW RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 22 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET
08/25/2021 PLANING SET
09/08/2021 PLANING SET
SCALE 1"= 10'-0"

SITE AREAS
NORTH
A-5.2 · SITE AREAS

1.e
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) 1 1 3 3 FF AA CC BB EE 2 2 DD 1 1 3 3 FF AA CC BB EE 2 2 DD

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
14'-0"x13'-6"
1173.00
BEDROOM #3
13'-0"x15'-0"
BEDROOM # 2
20'-0"x20'-0"
1170.00
GARAGE
7'-9"x5'-0"
BATH
13'-0"x6'-1"
BATH
CLOSET

UNDER STAIRS
1170.00
1170.00
1173.00
12'-0"x13'-6"
BEDROOM # 1
1170.00

MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REF.
20'-10"x12'-10"
1179.83'

DECK OVER GARAGE
25'-0"x20'-0"

LIVING ROOM
1180.00'
DN
1180.00'
15'-9"x13'-6"
FAMILY ROOM 12'-10"x2'-6" CLOSET
17'-6"x12'-10"

KITCHEN
A-9 A-9 A A A-9 A-9B B
9'-10" 14'-3" 1'-8"
75'-3"
22'-10" 11'-11" 8'-5"
75'-3" 13'-11" 6'-11" 20'-10" 20'-10"
A-9 A-9 A A A-9 A-9B B
11'-9" 14'-5"
9'-10"
75'-3" 13'-11" 6'-11" 20'-10"
13'-5"
7'-9"
20'-5"
75'-3" 20'-10"
4'-9" 3'-6"
1170.00
1180.00' 1182.00' CLOSET HCL=9'-0"
HCL=9'-0" HCL=8'-0" 13'-6"x2'-7"
HCL=10'-0"
HCL=10'-0" HCL=10'-0"
D01 D02 D03 D05
D05 D09
W03 W04 W06
W03 D09 D11
D10 DN7 (T) @11" 8 (R) @ 6"
19'-8"x5'-0"
1181.83'
DECK
19'-6" 16'-2" 3'-6" 5'
9'-10"
16 (R)@ 7.5"
15 (T) @11"
16 (R)@ 7.5"
15 (T) @11"
D04
D05
W04 W01 W01
16'-2"x5'-0"
PATIO
W02 1172.83 W05 W05
D05 D07 CLOSET 9'-7"x3'-8" D07 CLOSET 8'-1"x3'-8"
D06

WASHER DRYER
9'-5"x3'-1"
CLOSET
D05
12' 4'-6"
24'-7" D08 W07
6'-1"x8'-0"
BATH
1182.00'
W08 3'

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR - DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGTH TYPE DESCRIPTION
D01 15'-0" 7'-0" Garage - D02 3'-0" 7'-8" Hinged - D03 2'-6" 6'-8" Hinged Solid Core D04 8'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - D05 2'-6" 6'-8" Hinged - D06 5'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - D07 6'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - LOWER LEVEL FLOOR - WINDOWS SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
W01 6'-0" 4'-0" Fix - W02 8'-0" 5'-0" Sliding Egress

MAIN LEVEL FLOOR - DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGTH TYPE DESCRIPTION
D08 2'-6" 6'-8" Hinged - D09 10'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - D10 8'-0" 8'-0" Sliding - D11 8'-0" 8'-0" Sliding - MAIN LEVEL FLOOR - WINDOWS SCHEDULE

NUMBER WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
W03 4'-0" 8'-0" CS
W04 8'-0" 4'-0" Sliding - W05 4'-0" 6'-0" Fix - W06 8'-0" 5'-0" Sliding Egress W07 4'-6" 2'-0" Fix - W08 4'-0" 1'-8" Fix --
W03 W03 W03
CS: CASEMENT
D05
5(R)@ 7.5"
4(T)@11"
D05
3'-7"x3'-1"
CLOSET
ENTRY
HCL=9'-0"
UP
UP
18'-5"x5'-0"
1169.83'
DECK
D04
19'-3"
W03 W03 W03 W03 2'-7"
W02.1
W02.1 2'-0" 1'-4" Fix
W03

PROJECTION

OF DECK
ABOVE
3'
3'
42"
guardrail 1182.00'
D09 10'-0" 6'-8" Sliding - W04 8'-0" 4'-0" Sliding -
4 (R) @ 6"
3 (T) @11"
11' -
4'-5" 4'-9"
20'-10" 3'-8" 1'-8" 3'-5"
3'-8" 13'
1'-8"
9'-5" 4'-5"
1'-8"
3'
3'
1173.00 · FLOOR PLANS
A-6
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.e
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) B
A9 1

2.2 1

2.2 11
11 8 5 4 8
11 8 2 5 4

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING
GROUND
11 4
W04 W03 W03 W03 W03
D10
D04
D04 W04
W02

RETAINING
WALL
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 10' 1' 10" 15'-10" 4'

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
DECK
1179.83'
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 35' 11'-2"
1179.00'
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 10' 10"
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83' 2' 2" 10"

2.2 2.2

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

2.2 2.2

3.1 3.1

3.1 2.1 2.1 2 2 3 3
10 E:\jce-proyectos\2018-02-06_Pacifica_Vacant Lot Talbot Ave\2021\JCE-NIC\01-27-2021\PDF Images\01-27-2021- TALBOT-PLANING SETbc4dac7e.png B A9 1

2.2 11 8
11 11 11 9

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3

2.13 3.1
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
1179.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83'
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00' 10' 1'-10" 26'-5" 9'

EXISTING
GROUND
W02.1
D02
W03 W03 W03 W03 W03
W03 W08
W08

RETAINING
WALL 2'-7" 2'
TOP OF PLATE 1 1'
1170.00'
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'

GARAGE LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 3' 10' 1' 10" 23'-10" 9'
DECK
1181.83'

2.2 2.2

2.1 2.1 2 2

2.1 2.1 6 7
10 10
10 3
(N) ROOF
(N) ENTRY DOORS
(N) WINDOWS 14 6 3 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 8 2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 1608 CONTEMPORARY

EXTERIOR DOOR
SIMPSON DOOR 7 (N) GARAGE DOOR

MODERN STEEL AND GLASS

JDT GARAGE DOOR
7' X 14'
ELEVATION LEGEND5 (N) SLIDING DOOR

VINYL WINDOW

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE
(EXTERIOR FINISH)

2.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS

2.2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SHASTA WHITE LRV55
BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT

APPLICATION WITH WOOD

OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE
D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3
1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH
OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS.

IPE SIDING

MARVIN EXTERIOR DOOR
GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED
COLOR: SUEDE(EXTERIOR FINISH) 9 GARAGE DOOR VENTS
3 PLY CLASS B BITOUMINOUS
ROOFING OVER FOAMULAR 600
(ASTM C578) EXTRUDED

POLYSTYRENE RIGID FOAM

INSULATION TO PROVIDE SLOPE
OF 2% MIN. SEE ROOF PLAN ON
SHEET A-02 OVER 1/2" CDX
PLYWOOD.
10 (N) WINDOW

VINYL WINDOW-SAFETY
/TEMP-GLAZED

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE

ATLANTIS RAIL SYSTEM -

STAINLESS STEEL RAILING

SYSTEMS
(N) GUARDRAIL
2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION

AIR OPENING AT THE

BOTTOM SECTION OF
THE GARAGE DOOR.
#546 SAND DOLLAR LRV 70 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER.

PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2"
ABOVE PAVED AREAS.
#1092 GOLDEN SAFARI
LRV 65 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE
3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF
4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED
AREAS.

3.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SLATE

SHALE STONE
11 (N)EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE

VONN LIGHTING
LOW-VOLTAGE 5-WATT BLACK

OUTDOOR INTEGRATED LED

WALL MOUNT SCONCE
FINISH: MATT BLACK
MATERIAL: ALUMINUM WITH UV

PROOF POWDER COATING
DIFFUSER: POLYCARBONATE
CRI:90
LUMENS:357
WATTS:5W
VOLTS:120 AC · ELEVATIONS
A-7
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.e
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan)

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A
A9 2 3 4
11 11

EXISTING
GROUND 2 8 8 5 4 4
11 8 10"
W05 W05
W01 W01
D11

RETAINING
WALL
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
DECK
1179.83'
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 35' 11'-2"
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 10' 10"
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83' 2' 2" 10"

2.2 2.2

2.2 2 4

RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A
A9

2.2 2 4
11 11 8 4 8
W07 W06 3
1170.00'
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'

GARAGE LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 3' 10' 1' 10" 23'-10" 9'
DECK
1181.83'

2.2 2.2

2.1 3.1 3

LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A B C D E
20'-5" 18'-5" 16'-2"
72'-3" 20'-10"
20'-5" 10'-5" 13'-9" 27'-8"
72'-3" 20'-10" G
2'-11"
G' F
14'-4" 5' 1'-6"3'-6" 3'-11" 16'-11"
DN
UP

MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" M
12'-10" 19'-6" 4'-9"
75'-3" 20'-10"
12'-10" 22'-10" 11'-11" 27'-8"
75'-3" 20'-10"
2'-11" 16'-2" 5' H I J N
4'-5" K14'-8" L 1'-6" 16'-11"
3'-6"
78'-9"

LOWER FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT) B 40.84 C 409.02 D 53.85 E 576.14 F 22.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 1101.85
GARAGE (A) 425.35
PATIO (G) 80.83
DECK (G') 91.47

MAIN FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT) H 476.01 I 201.52 J 576.14 K 29.25 L 22.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 1304.92 M 267.36 N 98.33
TOTAL DECK AREA 365.69
(N) ROOF
(N) ENTRY DOORS
(N) WINDOWS 14 6 3 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 8 2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS 1608 CONTEMPORARY

EXTERIOR DOOR
SIMPSON DOOR 7 (N) GARAGE DOOR

MODERN STEEL AND GLASS

JDT GARAGE DOOR
7' X 14'
ELEVATION LEGEND5 (N) SLIDING DOOR

VINYL WINDOW

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE
(EXTERIOR FINISH)

2.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS

2.2 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SHASTA WHITE LRV55
BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT

APPLICATION WITH WOOD

OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE
D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3
1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH
OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS.

IPE SIDING

MARVIN EXTERIOR DOOR
GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED
COLOR: SUEDE(EXTERIOR FINISH) 9 GARAGE DOOR VENTS
3 PLY CLASS B BITOUMINOUS
ROOFING OVER FOAMULAR 600
(ASTM C578) EXTRUDED

POLYSTYRENE RIGID FOAM

INSULATION TO PROVIDE SLOPE
OF 2% MIN. SEE ROOF PLAN ON
SHEET A-02 OVER 1/2" CDX
PLYWOOD.
10 (N) WINDOW

VINYL WINDOW-SAFETY
/TEMP-GLAZED

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE

ATLANTIS RAIL SYSTEM -

STAINLESS STEEL RAILING

SYSTEMS
(N) GUARDRAIL
2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION

AIR OPENING AT THE

BOTTOM SECTION OF
THE GARAGE DOOR.
#546 SAND DOLLAR LRV 70 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER.

PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2"
ABOVE PAVED AREAS.
#1092 GOLDEN SAFARI
LRV 65 BASE A
7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION

WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF
GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE
3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF
4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED
AREAS.

3.1 (N) EXTERIOR WALLS
SLATE

SHALE STONE
11 (N)EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE

VONN LIGHTING
LOW-VOLTAGE 5-WATT BLACK

OUTDOOR INTEGRATED LED

WALL MOUNT SCONCE
FINISH: MATT BLACK
MATERIAL: ALUMINUM WITH UV

PROOF POWDER COATING
DIFFUSER: POLYCARBONATE
CRI:90
LUMENS:357
WATTS:5W
VOLTS:120 AC · ELEVATIONS · AREA CALCULATIONS
A-8
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.e
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) GARAGE

SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10' CL
CRAWL SPACE 1'-6" CRAWL SPACE
BATH 8' CL
1170.00'
MAIN FLOOR 2
1182.00'

GARAGE LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
1173.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83'
TOP OF ROOF 2
1193.00'
TOP OF PLATE 3
1192.00' 9' CL 3' 10' 1' 10" 23'-10" 9'

CRAWL SPACE

EXISTING
GROUND

MACHINE ROOM

UNDER STAIRS

LIVING ROOM KITCHEN
DECK
1181.83' 10' CL
WASHER DRYER 1'-6" 9' CL
BATH

CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE
CLOSET
CLOSET
CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE 1'-6"
CLOSET
FAMILY ROOM 10' CL
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
DECK
1179.83'
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 27'-9" 3'-11"
1179.00'
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 1' 10' 10"
TOP OF PARAPET 2
1193.83' 2'
BEDROOM #1 10' CL 9' CL

SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ENTRY
CRAWL SPACE 9' CL 1'-6"CRAWL
SPACE

EXISTING
GROUND

LIVING ROOM
1170.00'

MAIN FLOOR
1180.00'

GARAGE LEVEL
TOP OF ROOF 1
1191.00' 1' 29'-9" 7'-9"
1179.00'
TOP OF PLATE 1
TOP OF PLATE 2
1190.00'
TOP OF PARAPET 1
1191.83' 9' 1' 10' 10"
1169.83

DECK LEVEL
W03
D02 · SECTIONS
A-9
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
180206MURPHY RESIDENCE TALBOT AVE. PACIFICA, CA 94044 SAN MATEO COUNTY APN : 016 - 270 - 110 06 / 30 / 21 JAVIER M. CHAVARRIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA 10/14/2020 PLANING SET
01/27/2021 PLANING SET
06/01/2021 PLANING SET
07/01/2021 PLANING SET

1.e
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment E - Revised Project Plans (4863 : New single-family residence at TBD Talbot (APN 016-270-110))

5.d
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Agenda Packet - January 18, 2022 (omitting Attachments A and C) (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan) Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

GPA-100-21 File No. 2018-057 – General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21, RZ-201-18 Rezoning RZ-201-18, Development Plan DP-79-18, Specific DP-79-18 Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18, and Parking Exception SP-169-18 PE-191-21 filed by Matthew and Margaret Murphy, for a General PV-526-18 Plan land use designation change to Very Low Density Residential PE-191-21 (VLDR), rezoning to the P-D (Planned Development) HPD Hillside Preservation District) zoning districts, authorization for single-family residential use, and construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with a two-car garage on a 24,149-sf undeveloped parcel, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110) in Pacifica. A variance is required to exceed the allowable coverage within the HPD zoning district and a variance and parking exception are required to deviate from the guest parking requirement within the HPD zoning district. Recommended CEQA Action: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Contract Planner Aggarwal presented the staff report.

Commissioner Godwin asked if the fire risk was considered on this site and, if so, did North County Fire approve it.

Contract Planner Aggarwal stated that the North County Fire reviewed the plan and reconditioned the project which are included in the conditions of approval part of the project. She stated that there are no trees or large vegetation within the development area. They did look at the fire code plan and approved that as conditioned.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock added that he spent time with the North County Fire Authority, not only discussing their architectural site plan review but also broader considerations about it potentially being in a wild and urban interface and other considerations about the fire service access features and scope of site, etc. He stated that there was nothing out of the ordinary in the fire department’s opinion with respect to reviewing this project. They elicited concerns that required special interventions through further conditions of approval and modifications to the project.

Commissioner Godwin asked if the electric power will be underground, from a power pole or what specific connections are going to be provided.

Contract Planner Aggarwal stated that Engineering requires undergrounding of electric lines from the pole to the development and that is the area where it will be underground.

Commissioner Godwin referred to a request in the report for a darker colored roof to make the roof less visible from the Milagra Ridge trail. He thought, with climate change, etc., the general recommendation is light colored roofs in order to increase the reflectivity of the house and minimize any heating demand. He asked if they thought about that as well.

5.e
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

Contract Planner Aggarawal stated that they would examine the reflective value of the roof when it comes in prior to building permit issuance of the plan, adding that it was not something they thought of in the review of the plans at the planning entitlement stage, but it is something they should consider which they will in evaluating what the colors would finally be. She stated that there is more question of reflectivity value and there would be choices of colors and to find a balance between it being subdued within the background and there are other concerns that might have to be addressed and will get addressed.

Commissioner Hauser appreciated staff’s report as they addressed all of her questions. She did have two additional ones that came up. She wanted to understand how long the PG&E and water utility easement had been recorded on the property.

Contract Planner Aggarwal stated that there are two easements, one along the western property boundary which is a different easement, and one which is a 50-foot wide easement which runs along the southern border. She was not entirely certain on what the length of that could be, but something that Engineering staff has evaluated.

Commissioner Hauser stated that she saw Mr. Chavarria on his phone and she was sure he has done a thorough title review, and she will reserve her question for the appropriate time, i.e., how long has the easement been in place and how long has the property owner been pursuing this application. She thought it would be helpful to get a sense of a timeline if there have been other applications and how long this has been going on.

Contract Planner Aggarwal stated that this application was first submitted in late 2018 and, since then, there have been some resubmittals and there were incompleteness items to which the applicant had to respond which had to do with the design of the project and how the development would be located on the site. Staff also had questions about whether the development would be conducted in a manner that would not disrupt any of the utility lines on site. She stated information on all that was provided, and the application has been in process since late 2018.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock added that, if he was understanding what was behind her question with respect to the PG&E easement, this lot was created in 1962 or 1963 and that might be a relevant date for the questions she is asking and he thought Mr. Chavarria may be able to elaborate on when the various easements were recorded on the property.

Chair Nibbelin thought Mr. Chavarria will have the opportunity to determine those things during his presentation. He then stated that they could hear from the applicant.

Javier Chavarria, applicant, stated that they will start differently as the property owner wants to make an opening statement and after his finishes, in 5 minutes or so, he will address the project aspects.

Brendan Murphy, owner, introduced his wife, son and daughter, stating that they are the perspective residents of this project. He stated that they would love to move to Pacifica as they find it a wonderful place as they have come here for walks for 30 years, with his father living her for the past 15 years. He would love to have the opportunity for his kids to live on the same street as their grandfather. He commutes long distances and moving here would help him in that way as well as with the collective air. He stated that it has been a long process, approximately three years, and he was not sure what was normal, but it took them two years just to prove the legality

5.e
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

of the lot, after which they received their certificate of compliance. He stated that they have had an additional year of crossing ever “T” and dotting every “I”. He felt that the Planning Department has been thorough, and they tried to meet all their demands. He stated that they have been good to work with but it has become exhausting after three years and has cost a lot as well.

He stated that they value nature, environment, and they don’t want to build a monstrosity that will be an eyesore for everyone. He thought they were presenting a modest house as it is just a family house. He stated that it is a challenging lot with a 50-foot easement running through the middle of what would be an obvious place to build a house, but had them pushed off to the side going down the hill and created a longer driveway and they are running into trouble with Hillside Preservation requirements. He reiterated that they are keeping their house relatively modest, small and narrow to have less impact on the hillside and the environment. He loves Pacifica and would love to move here. He never met his grandfather and it would mean a lot to him for his kids to grow up near their grandfather. They hope to become a part of the community.

Javier Chavarria, applicant, stated that for clarification the recorded date of the easement, PG&E easement was recorded in 1954 and was a complicated scenario. There is a 50-foot street at the top of the property but there is a floating section of the easement that allows PG&E to put the lines where they wanted. He stated that the gas line has a quirky way to go down the hill and doesn’t follow a specific pattern because of that condition of the easement. He stated that the lot was also very complicated because, when it was created, there were not specific documents filed and they were done with paper. He stated that, for staff to accept the lot as complete, we have to prepare a certificate of compliance. They did a title search and history dating back to 1920s which demonstrated that the lot was correctly created and the certificate of compliance was issued, and it depicts the location of all the easements. The lot correctly dates from the 1960s and the easements were already recorded before the lot itself was split. He then referred to the design of the home, and as the owner mentioned, the majority of the easement has already been disturbed as gas, electric and water lines are already installed. He stated that the driveway is located on top of that easement. The footprint of the building is less than 2,000 square feet, and it is the new portion of the lot that has been disturbed. He stated that the design of the home, narrow and long, was done on purpose to minimize the disturbance to the hillside. They are missing the opportunity to build on the most buildable area of the lot because of the easement, and they minimized grading, tried to locate the driveway in such a manner that it wouldn’t interfere with the gas and electric lines and the other utilities in place. He stated that the location of the home is optimal for the site. He knew staff did a thorough job and it appears they needed different permits, but they are only asking for is an exception of HPD as all the other elements are technicalities. He stated that they are downgrading from low density to very low density because the numbers don’t match, adding that it is a technicality not something the designers or owners required. He stated that staff mentioned that the building provides enough parking, two garages, two parking spaces and a long driveway which should be sufficient to cover the practical needs of the home. He felt the building is well located. Regarding fire protection, the Fire Department has evaluated the plans and the 150 feet distance that any point of the building should have from the point where a fire truck is located. He stated that there are exceptions on the building code that allows a little more than 150 feet to the discretion of the fire marshal, i.e., Section 503.1 which grants exceptions when they have a single-family home to have that length of hose a little longer than 150 feet.

Chair Nibbelin asked if there was any remaining time of their ten minutes.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought there was a minute and a half remaining.

5.e
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

Chair Nibbelin opened the Public Hearing.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock introduced the speakers.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that, after hearing the presentation, he was pointed in a different direction. He referred to the existing housing on Talbot Road of false equivalency, as the topography is entirely different and anyone who looks at a topographical map sees that immediately. He stated that this would be the first house on the really steep sloped side. He stated that the even numbered side of the street was the more appropriate place to build. He then referred to HPD, stating that they heard a recitation of the history of other HPD exceptions that have been brought up before, and he stated that everyone becomes a part of the recital and every time you make an exception, you change the dynamics of the future and he felt that they must take each one seriously because you start with one, then 50 then 100, etc. He was concerned about that and hoped they understand that HPD has made what Pacifica is today and they enjoy that. He asked what we will pass on to those who come after us. He thought that there were real issues with fire safety as the hill is at the end of a hallow and it rises up and any fire that starts at the bottom will race up the hill to this building. He understood the family wants to move there, but he thought they have to understand the difficulties of using this particular site for building.

He presumed they knew about HPD and all those things but still decided that this was the direction they want to into with their hearts. He stated there was a real risk and government is to protect the city and individuals, and they are trying to protect the owner’s family and they want an exception to that. He thought they should indemnify the city as they are asking them to do something they don’t think is safe.

Mike Vernazza, Pacifica, commented on the variance request and as the neighbors haven’t been able to enjoy those privileges as well, as such Section 9-4.3404 makes that variance capability and he didn’t see how it would endanger their welfare and the previous speaker may see that differently if they were to potentially start a fire, but it is already a neighborhood. He hoped they could welcome the Murphy family into the community.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she was a licensed architect and a resident of the Manor District. She stated that she sent them a letter earlier in the day telling them of her concerns of this project in relation to fire safety, geological risk, the Hillside Preservation ordinance and the possible need for additional variances that are not currently noted in the staff report. She added that the lack of adequate analysis for General Plan conformance, particularly in regard to hillsides and the possibility of a public trail that is in the Local Coastal Plan. She hoped they had a chance to read her letters as she didn’t have time to address all of them now. She wanted to make sure the issues of public safety are addressed. She heard staff say that the Fire Department added conditions of approval but she did not see them in the staff report that was published. She asked for a page number if it is in the published report and, if added later, she asked that those conditions be read aloud at this meeting. She wants to understand that the Fire Department has allowed for extra hose lengths because she thought the drawings are inaccurate. She stated that there are also implications of planting trees close to the home and on a slope of approximately 100%. She reminded them that, on page 102 of the General Plan, the safety element was ignored on the Vistamar project by the same applicant and the trees appear to be more harmful to overall stability in slopes over 50% and should be avoided. She stated that the area where the trees are being planted is closer to 100% of 1-1 slope. She referred to the HPD variances, and stated that she was appalled that there is no discussion in the staff report as to precedence. She asked how

5.e
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

many variances have been granted over the years since the ordinance was enacted and what were the conditions, mitigation measures required, and were they as excessive as this project where it says that nothing can be built. She indicated that a project of this size to be legally built on this lot on reading the HPD regulations, would have to have a slope closer to 20% and they were talking about a 55% average and closer to 100% at the bottom where the house is sitting. She stated that they know that the latter part of the site is unbuildable. She was concerned about the General Plan’s safety element that is so old and they would continue to review projects without proper analysis.

Chair Nibbelin stated that the applicant had a minute and a half reserved to address any issues raised in public comment.

Mr. Chavarria briefly spoke to the issue of the HPD and location of the home, stating that it is a difficult site and the most buildable area is taken by the easement, but it was a property that was zoned already for residential and they understand and completely concur that there are discrepancies in some of the documents, such as the General Plan and zoning plans, but this site is designated for residential and they are doing the best possible way to place a building correctly, minimize the disturbance, and create a safe environment. He stated that the technical report was prepared and it doesn’t show any instability in the area. He stated that the building will be set on three piers to the current standards. The drawings are going to be peer reviewed and properly engineered. He stated that the Fire Department has reviewed the plans and the owners and designers will not want to build something that is unsafe and every precaution is taken to comply as close as possible to all the regulations. He asked that they not forget that the buildings are required to be sprinklered as well and the possibilities for a serious catastrophe generated by the building is very unlikely.

Chair Nibbelin closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Hauser stated that this has been an interested project. She stated that HPD is very clear, the calculation is very clear and this is designed with a 20% average slope. She thought, if there was a flat spot on the parcel and the remainder of it was 55%, she could wrap her head around potentially placing a building there, but the house is off the edge of the cliff and, if you go to the cul-de-sac and get out, you are looking down and she doesn’t see it. She stated that HPD has been around for 50 years, the easements have been on the site for 70 years and she didn’t think the land use has changed. She appreciated that it is just a single-family home, but when you buy a piece of property, you are given disclosures and to some extent, they are an “eyes wide open” that needs to happen and she didn’t see it.

Chair Nibbelin stated that one thing that has come up in the staff report and discussed in context of the variance is concern about avoiding confiscatory, a term used in the staff report, which speaks to regulations that might result in inability to make any use of the property and he hoped they could speak a bit more to that.

Assistant City Attorney Rudin stated that the city’s HPD ordinance basically sets forth a coverage formula and states that it should be interpreted in a manner that is not going to be confiscatory.

While the city code doesn’t have any specific definition about what that really means, typically, when the voters are enacting that, they are assumed to enact it in light of the background of relevant law. He stated that one of reasons that language is in there is the concept of regulatory takings. He stated that is basically the concept that land use regulations cannot deny a property

5.e
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

owner all economically beneficial use of their property without some form of compensation by the government. He stated that, with respect to the land use coverage standards, they basically decrease coverage as a set formula down to zero. With respect to having a zero coverage standard, that substantially makes it difficult for a land owner to make economically beneficial use of their property, basically zero coverage standard that says you cannot build anything on top of it. He stated that is one reason why there is the potential for an applicant to apply for a variance. When the voters enacted this particular ordinance, the concept of variance in land use law was well known and had been around for at least a decade at that time and the ordinance didn’t modify or eliminate the city’s ability to grant a variance on the basis of depriving an owner based on the requirements of variance law, i.e., denying the owner of the same sort of use that would be permitted under the zoning classification that is available to other users. He stated that, with respect to the coverage formula, the idea of all economic benefit doesn’t mean that the applicant is entitled to the specific amount of coverage they would like, but to avoid that potential risk of a regulatory taking, there has to be some economically beneficial use available to that land.

Chair Nibbelin wanted to refresh his recollection, asking when the Hillside Preservation District ordinance was adopted.

Mr. Rudin stated that it looks like, based on the notes in the city code, it would have been adopted around 1972. He referred to when Planning staff was looking into this regarding a certificate of compliance issue, and stated that they determined that this lot was created before that ordinance.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Chair Nibbelin concluded that the lot was actually in existence at the time that the ordinance was adopted and they could look at this in the context of the timing. He is very hesitant to deny a project that looks like it is well thought out. He stated that it has been quite a process and he thought the parcel is zoned and the General Plan does contemplate residential use and the zoning contemplates residential use. He believes this is a situation where a variance would be appropriate and he recognizes that there are concerns about issuing a variance but on this project, he seems to be coming down in a different place from his colleagues.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that several members of the public also wanted more information related to previous variances from HPD standards. He stated that, if it was acceptable to Chair Nibbelin, he would like to make a few brief remarks on that point.

Chair Nibbelin stated he could go ahead and comment.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that Mr. Rudin could opine on the issue of precedent in relation to adjudicative land use decisions such as this and the variance in question. He stated that, generally speaking, he understood that these are not precedential from a legal standpoint but he thought they are instructive as to how the city approached similar questions under different or similar circumstances and what the outcome was. He stated that staff was able to identify a total of approximately 11 previous variance applications from standards under the HPD zoning standards and, of those, ten of them were from the HPD coverage standard and two from HPD parking standards. He stated that it is difficult to research that precise issue in some of their planning records. The variances stand from 1977 through 2014 and the type of reports and the level of detail in those reports varies. However, he was able to piece together information about

5.e
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

a handful of those previous variance applications. He stated that, according to their logbook, it looks like seven of them were approved and, of those, he was able to gather information on four of them. With three of those four applications approved, the sites were entitled to zero percent coverage under the HPD coverage regulations. They were approved for coverage in those instances, with two of them undeveloped sites with zero percent allowable coverage and ended up getting, in one case, 14.4% coverage and in another 11.9% coverage. Another was an unusual situation where they needed to do extensive amount of remedial grading to address geotechnical concerns and it was a much larger project with several dozen condominium units and maybe not directly relevant for this type of project. The others were single-family residential projects and one of them was on the site immediately adjacent to and abutting this project, which is 722 Talbot and was approved in the mid-2000s. He stated that site had zero percent allowable coverage with an average slope on that site of 43.3%. He stated that project was approved by the Planning Commission for 11.9% coverage for approximately 7,921 square feet of coverage. He stated that this particular request for a variance for the subject project is not out of line with those previous requests and is in the same range of coverage amount in terms of percentage of site and square footage. He stated that it is actually less proposed coverage than the site that is immediately next door. He hoped that puts in context the fact that variances from the HPD coverage standard are not unprecedented but they come up infrequently and they are not something that they encourage applicants to pursue, as there are very few that they have a record of being considered and approved by the city. He stated that they are a tool as Mr. Rudin explained to provide a safety valve to avoid regulatory takings and to allow economic use of property where this particular zoning standard that was the HPD coverage formula would yield no economic use by virtue of disallowing any coverage on the site. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to share that information.

Commissioner Domurat concurred with Commissioner Hauser’s assessment that this is very steep site. He was on site today and you don’t want to slip and fall in that area, but if you compare it to other places where a lot of construction has been allowed in Pacifica, i.e., Pedro Point, there are areas there where there is no land whatsoever and homes were completely built out over very step terrain. He thought, from an engineering side, there is not going to be an issue of constructing the home that has been proposed. He referred to some of the mapping and he thought there seemed to be an unofficial trail that extends from the back of the property up toward Sharp Park Road, and he asked if that was an issue for anyone and something the public has been used to using and he asked if it will become an issue for the property owner in the future.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock he stated that he did locate an informal trail that exists, cutting across the property and going upslope toward Sharp Park Road. He stated that it is a site that could be impacted by this project if the property owner was to privatize all access to the property.

He stated that, if the Chair agrees, the owner could speak to their thoughts on their intended use of that trail by the public moving forward. It is identified as a trail opportunity as he recalled in some of the city’s planning documents, but to this point, the city has not acquired that right for public access and there is no planning policy in this case to oblige the property owner to provide that as a condition of development of the site.

Mr. Rudin stated he would have some concerns about requiring the property owner to provide that sort of access as conditions of development of the site.

Chair Nibbelin appreciated that input. He then stated that he would ask if Mr. Chavarria or the Murphys had comments on that point.

5.e
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021

Mr. Chavarria asked if Mr. Murphy wanted to speak about this.

Mr. Murphy stated that they have no objection as to leaving access to that trail. He stated that it would have to be discussed with the easement holders, PG&E and water department, but they are not in this to ruin people’s experience with Pacifica. He stated that he loves trails, and he didn’t like them being taken away so they are okay with that.

Vice Chair Berman stated that was the perfect segue into her first set of questions. She referred to the PG&E easement, asking if the easement language allude to specifically what PG&E requires. She thought that, per typical PG&E easements, you can’t build a structure on it, can’t block access to it, and her take on what appeared to be an unidentified trail was that it would be a PG&E access to the power or gas lines. She asked if Mr. Chavarria could answer her question.

Mr. Chavarria stated that the easement is an exclusive PG&E easement, and when the water company was trying to obtain and easement, there was a lot of discussion between the North Coast County Water District and PG&E to obtain an approval for a water line in place. He stated that the easement is very old, from 1954, and the language is very vague. He stated that basically PG&E has the jurisdiction to do whatever they want whenever they want on that portion of the property. He stated that, if a public access easement were to be proposed, he thought there were two elements of concern, will the property owner carry liability if someone gets hurt on the property and the other one is whether PG&E will allow an official overlay of this easement for public access.

Vice Chair Berman stated that was one of her original concerns in review of the staff report. She stated that the house structure is outside of the easement and she thought the grading as well as the curbs associated with the driveway and one of the flow-through planters are all within the easement and could restrict access to some extent. She stated that, if they were to go into more detail, she does have a concern with the corner of the flow-through planter that is partially in the easement of it and she thought it would have to be relocated and probably should be located further away from that gas line. She stated that there is a concern voiced by the public with the realistic disturbance due to construction. She thought the edge of a building or wall and a curb to a certain extent but constructability wise, there needs to be some over excavation in order to build service facilities. She thought this would be beneficial to discuss at a town hall meeting where they review the Hillside Preservation District’s requirements and the tolerance associated with it.

She was hoping they could have something like that before another one of these projects came before them. She then asked if there were any renderings of the vantage points specifically. She stated that in past projects, especially hillside projects, the applicant will have some site line renderings available, and she thought that would be advantageous for this location to have an idea of what the site line is going to look like from higher elevation as well as lower elevation and adjacent roads. She asked if those were available.

Mr. Chavarria stated that they did not prepare any renderings from vantage points, just a general rendering of the project.

Vice Chair Berman understood and stated that, as she isn’t as artistically minded as some fellow commissioners, she was having a hard time understanding the compatibility of the modern style of the home with the rest of the houses on this road. She stated that the majority of the houses seemed to have craftsman sloped roofs type of homes and a Tuscan style home directly adjacent

5.e
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - August 2, 2021 (4914 : TBD Talbot Single-Family Residential Project: General Plan Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2021