1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Murdock, Christian; Public Comment; Berman, Lauren; Hauser, Samantha; Leal, David; Nibbelin, John; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Domurat, George; Myers, Ron [NCC Fire] Cc: ; JOEL BALDWIN
Subject: Talbot project concerns
Attachments: Boles letter to Planning re Talbot Avenue home 6.27.21.pdf; Boles letter re. Talbot project 8.2.21.pdf; Joel Baldwin comment trees.jpg
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mr. Murdock, Chief Myers, and Planning Commissioners, In reviewing the agenda for Monday, I first want to draw your attention to my previous correspondence. 1) The letter I sent you on June 27, 2021 is partially illegible in the current staff report. I have attached a proper copy for the record.
2) The letter I sent you on August 2, 2021 is completely missing from this current staff report. This is improper as this omission deprives others of information that may be critical to the project's safety.
The issues I raised in this second letter in relation to basic fire safety have not been addressed in the new drawings or in the staff report. Drawing page A-5.1 dimensions the fire house lay path from the turnaround as 150'; the actual dimension I measure on a scaled pdf is 166'-1". It has not changed from the previous submittal. I understand that the fire department may allow an exception to typical code maximum 150' lengths, but they do not address this in their project comments included in this staff report either. It may be that they just trusted the engineer's apparent forced dimension. Chief Myers, could you comment on this please?
Commissioners I would suggest that you consider asking Staff to produce the actual document for the 150-foot fire hose path exception. Given the importance of fire safety, that should be part of the documentation provided by Staff so that at a minimum it can be added as a Condition of Approval.
3) I really appreciate the added reference to the HDAI report in this staff report. In terms of their recommendation that trees should not be being planted on steep slopes in excess of 50%, I actually stumbled across quotes from Geotechnical Engineer Joel Baldwin (who performed field investigations of the 475 landslides of 1982 along with Howard Donley, and who later acted as the city's official geotechnical engineer) in old Tribune newspapers of 1982 and 1983, see attached. The issue is that not only do trees block the flow of water as he says, but their roots also draw water further down into the soil of the hill, increasing risk for debris flow landslides in areas of susceptibility. The article mentions a future study on this issue that the city was to have undertaken. Are there any records of this study having been done? This information would also be very helpful to clarify for the General Plan Safety Element update. Joel Baldwin is still around; he was our soils engineer for our own new home in Pacifica. I have copied him on this communication.
I have further comments on the HPD issues, and will try to get those comments to you before the hearing tonight.
Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
2 Pacifica, CA 94044
www.beausoleil-architects.com
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 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.
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.
♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
DATE: August 2, 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,
Having now read the staff report, I have the following additional concerns about this project coming before the Planning Commission this evening.
A. Fire Safety.
My main concern about the project as currently designed is related to fire safety. As you know, our General Plan Safety Element is out of compliance with state law in regard to fire risk as it was not updated as required in 2015 when the last Housing Element was updated (California Government Code Section 65302 (g)(3)) so it is unclear if the 1983 General Plan Safety Element can be used to review this project. I would have expected to see a letter from the North County Fire Authority indicating their review and acceptance of the project as designed before bringing this project to the Planning Commission for consideration. Without this proper review before entitlements are granted, I fear that this may present a public danger and leave the City of Pacifica liable for possible damages.
I appreciate the addition of sheet A5.1 the Fire Hose Lay Plan. Has the fire department been given scale copies of the drawings so that they can accurately review and verify compliance? I measured the fire hose lengths indicated on the drawing, and they appear to be inaccurate. See Exhibit A, attached.
The dashed line on the south side of the proposed house is labeled as 150’, which is the maximum allowed hose length from a fire truck parked on the street. The actual length of this path measures approximately 166’, well above the maximum. The hose path on the north side of the house also appears to be inaccurate. This site plan neglects to show a 5’ deep deck, which firefighters cannot pass under to reach the far end of the house, see rear elevation. This deviation would extend this hose length past the maximum length. There is also a 4’ high landing and stair to the ground at the northeast corner of the project which does not show on this plan or other site plans. I’m also curious as to whether the fire department allows the fire fighter walking path to include cross slope areas at 1:1, or 100% slope. This seems dangerous, if not impossible to navigate.
It is also my understanding that state fire laws require clear defensible space for fire prevention. The existing tree canopy as shown on the site plan is only 28’ from the home, and the new proposed tree locations would eventually overlap the building and each other as they grow to have 25-40’ canopies.
I also want to remind you again that the Safety Element does not recommend trees to be planted on slopes over 50% slope as they create additional safety hazards. “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.” P. 102 The areas where the proposed trees are shown are at approximately 100% slope.
B. Geology/Potential Landslides
The project geotechnical report on page 1 refers to several USGS reports for review of landslide potential characteristics.
♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
I want to remind you again that the Howard Donnely Report (HDAI) that informed the current 1983 Safety Element specifically said that USGS maps do not represent the types of landslides that Pacifica is prone to, which are surficial debris flow landslides. The report says, “It is therefore our opinion that much of the published geologic hazard information affecting Pacifica is no longer valid for use in the City; a new set of landslide hazards maps should be produced for the area.”
I assume these new maps have been prepared as part of the current General Plan update that according to the calendar on the city’s Plan.Pacifica website will be ready for public review very soon (summer of 2021)? I would suggest that these maps be provided to the project and city engineers as well as to the public to ensure the project on such steep slopes will not become a public hazard and liability for the city.
The Safety Element also requires additional geotechnical work, including analysis of off-site hazards and geological cross sections which I do not see in the project documents, see below. ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
C. Hillside Preservation District (HPD)
1. The project is asking for variances HPD coverage and parking. I understand the ordinance includes a vague sentence related to legal arguments of “taking”, “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.” What I do not see in the staff report is any analysis of precedent for this argument. Have similar projects been granted variances to HPD? I would think an understanding of precedence would be important information to assist the Planning Commission in their deliberations.
2. The staff report discusses the homes on other nearby parcels on Talbot Avenue, but all of these are on sites which are much less steep, and only one of which has an HPD overlay, so these examples are not very helpful. The adjacent parcel that has an HPD overlay is a much larger site as well, about three times the size of this parcel, so HPD would allow a greater disturbed area.
3. There is also no legal analysis given of what “reasonable use” might entail. For this project with 6,573 of disturbance to comply with HPD, the average slope would need to be closer to 20% instead of 55%. Is it “reasonable” to allow this much overage? Personally, I would like to hear from the City Attorney on the matter.
4. The Planning Commissioners have now asked twice at the last two commission meetings for a presentation on HPD so that they can better understand the nuances of the ordinance. It seems premature to ask the Commissioners to opine on these variance requests today before they are given the information they would need to be able to properly analyze the project and make the required findings. As you know from my previous correspondence, I disagree with the Planning Department’s analysis of several recently approved projects that did not include proper review of HPD in the staff reports. I am skeptical of a one-sided presentation by planning staff with no opportunity for public input. It is important to understand the intent of the ordinance as well as the precise language. There are quite a few members of the public with this institutional historical knowledge who are quite passionate about this ordinance and its’ intent to protect our hillside resources from inappropriate development. These voices should be heard.
5. Besides the two variances to HPD requested for this project, it seems that the project may also require a variance from HPD for the road. According to Section 9-4.2258, Minimum Street Standards for the smallest roads, called “Local” appear to require 6’ sidewalks. There are currently no sidewalks in the area.
6. Section 9-4.2252 of the HPD ordinance requires “(i) Utility wires and television lines shall be installed underground”. I may have missed it, but don’t see a utility plan in the drawings.
7. In terms of the proposed zoning change to Very Low Density Residential, I am unclear as to why this is necessary. The first paragraph of the HPD ordinance says, “In cases of conflict between such zoning districts and the overlay Hillside Preservation District, the provisions of this article for the Hillside Preservation District shall prevail.”
I would also respectfully ask the Commission to consider at what point all these requested variances to HPD are actually such a watering down of HPD regulations and are effectively removing the ordinance, thereby necessitating a vote of the people? And at what point would it be reasonable to ♦ www.beausoleil-architects.com
say that a particular property was improperly zoned and is unbuildable? Page 8 of the staff report says the lot is “severely undersized based on its’ slope according to the City’s subdivision standards” in Municipal Code Section 10.1.912. Between this ordinance and HPD ordinance in Article 22.5, we have two sections of the Municipal Code confirming by calculation and not vague language that this lot is unbuildable.
D. General Plan/Municipal Code Conformance
I also find it interesting that the staff report on page 9 lists argues that the zoning change is consistent with a few sections of the General Plan, but other key sections are not analyzed. Below are a few examples:
a. From the Community Design Element policies:
3. Protect the City's irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities. (LU) (CT)
4. Establish development standards that would keep open the steep slopes and visually prominent ridgelines. (LU) (CT) (SH)
*8. Review existing hillside building regulations and review procedures to ensure the appropriateness of the planning criteria and regulatory procedures. (CT) (LU)
b. From the Land Use Element in the section for East Sharp Park:
“Several major vacant parcels are included within the boundaries of this neighborhood. Two of these parcels are immediately adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood, on the lower undeveloped slopes of Milagra Ridge and Gypsy Hill. One of these areas is at the back of the valley; the other is located south of Moana Way and east of Eastlake Avenue. Both are the remains of old subdivisions, and should be replatted based on geotechnical considerations, emergency equipment access and other public safety considerations. Although low density residential use is proposed, consistent with existing development, the specific density should be determined by studies describing the condition of the land and public safety.
The General Plan contains numerous goals and policies intended to control development on hillsides and ridgelines in order to protect the visual resources of the City to promote geotechnically stable development, and ensure appropriate scale and density of development on hillsides. These policies include protection of natural land forms which define areas, especially ridgelines, and fitting development to the topography and building on the less prominent portions of ridgelines.
On page 53, the General Plan discusses possible development of Milagra Ridge and affirms the importance of the HPD ordinance. The coverage controls contained in the Hillside Preservation District overlay zone provide additional regulations to address the sensitivity of the site and the above goals. c. Municipal Code section 10-1.912 – Hillside and Large Lot Subdivisions, says, “General Plan guideline objectives. The adopted General Plan endorses a set of objectives for the future development of the hillside areas of the City. The adoption of precise or specific standards for density, grading, street standards, and the provision of open space was deferred pending further study which was underway at the time the provisions of this chapter were adopted. This section of the code was adopted in 1986. I am curious as to whether this study they say was underway 35 years ago was ever completed. It would be very helpful and more in keeping with sound environmental and safety policies of other Bay Area cities to have specific measurable standards, especially related to grading limitations on steep hillsides.
E. Public Trail on Site
There is no discussion in the staff report about the existing trail to Sharp Park Road on the site.
This trail was identified at the Planning Commission Meeting of January 21, 2020 as part of a review of the Local Coastal Plan, noting the importance of connecting ridge and coastal trails. PRI-40 in the current LCP Certification draft references this trail. Should this not be discussed as part of the project review so that the city can request an easement if desired? Again, it seems that OSPAC review of this proposed project as it relates to trails and open space would be helpful.
1 Murdock, Christian
From: Christine Boles >
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:59 PM
To: Public Comment; Murdock, Christian; Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Nibbelin, John; Leal, David; Godwin, James; Ferguson, Alex; Domurat, George Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 Talbot project [CAUTION: External Email]
Sorry for the delay in getting this out. I plan to read it at tonight's meeting, but wanted to make sure the commissioners also had the data from these projects in written format. A group of us is still working on a "Position Paper" in response to information we find to be lacking the city's HPD "Fact" sheet, but we have been stalled due to the missing information from public records, and of course now with the more pressing General Plan release. We maintain that there is a great need and desire to have a public study session with the City Council and Planning Commission in regards to understanding and properly reviewing HPD.
Good evening commissioners and staff. I sent you written comments earlier about the fire issues on this project and I look forward to hearing those addressed.
I wanted to focus my comments tonight on the Hillside Preservation District Ordinance variance being requested. Over the past 5 months I have trying to review past projects with HPD variances. Mr. Murdock gave me a list of 10 projects that his records showed applied for variances, but he did not know the outcome of all of them.
Of the 10 projects, only 4 were single family homes, so I will focus on those as they pertain to precedent for this project. 650 Corona approved in 2014 did not ask for a variance 130 Dardenelle- I am still missing the minutes from 1988 where the home was originally approved. There was a minor variance asked for 20 years later in 2008 for a small addition. The findings to grant the variance carefully explain that the site had been previously disturbed for a road for a water tank access for the water district.
200 Berendos HPD showed 0 disturbance was allowed. They applied for 18.3% disturbance and the PC thought that was too much. It was redesigned and approved for 14.4% disturbance. The project was never built. For the project next door to this one at 722 Talbot, I am still waiting for planning commission minutes for the hearing on November 4, 2004. I found the City Council minutes which indicated that the project had had a prior study session with the Planning Commission, so they actively worked to come to a design solution that the Planning Commission could accept before finalizing their design. That project is on a site 2.5 times the size of this one, 66,565 square feet with an average slope of 43.35%, not nearly as steep as this project, and without the 100% slope drop-off. The staff report compares the scale of the proposed house to the others on the street as part of the justification or the variance. They only allowed 11% disturbance.
If you read Dr. James Kremer’s recent piece on HPD and taking law, I’m sure you saw that there is a lot discretion available to you as commissioners in determining what is “reasonable use” so as not to be confiscatory. This is a small, very burdened piece of land. Between the areas of 100% slope and the utility easements, it is already not at all in the same category of value as the adjacent home. To me it seems that granting 27% disturbance versus 11% next door, could actually be considered discriminatory by the owners of 722 Talbot who certainly paid a lot more money for their piece of land.
2 And one more thing, the exterior steps and concrete landing shown on the east side of the house on the elevations, is not shown on the site plan, and is therefore missing in the HPD calculations.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Christine Boles, Architect
Beausoleil Architects
Pacifica, CA 94044
“Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.” - Desmond Tutu CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.