agenda-report Consideration of an appeal of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) and upholding 1) the ministerial approval of the Urban Lot Split and Residential Development Permit and 2) Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit. File No. 2024-004 authorizes an urban lot split for an approximately 7,289 square foot (SF) undeveloped parcel into two parcels and development of a one single-family residence on each new lot at Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030).

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) and upholding 1) the ministerial approval of the Urban Lot Split and Residential Development Permit and 2) Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit. File No. 2024-004 authorizes an urban lot split for an approximately 7,289 square foot (SF) undeveloped parcel into two parcels and development of a one single-family residence on each new lot at Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP005-24) and upholding 1) the ministerial approval of the Urban Lot Split and Residential Development Permit and 2) Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit. (File No. 2024-004)
STAFF CONTACT:

Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director, Community Development Department (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Justin Shiu, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]

INTRODUCTION
File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) is an SB 9 application for a proposed urban lot split and residential development on each of the two newly created lots at Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030). The SB 9 application was reviewed ministerially by staff pursuant to State law and the City’s interim SB 9 Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 11- 2022) and found to be consistent with State law and applicable objective zoning standards. The project required Planning Commission’s approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) prior to issuance of a building permit because the Coastal Commission is requiring a Local Coastal Plan Amendment in order to administratively process SB 9 applications within the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. The CDP was approved at the Planning Commission regularly scheduled meeting on September 16, 2024 and an appeal of the approval was received on September 24, 2024. City Council is the review body that considers the appeal of Planning Commission decisions.

BACKGROUND
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
Project Description:

This item consists of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of an application for an urban lot split and two-unit development pursuant to SB 9 and a Coastal Development Permit (Attachment A). However, because of State law pursuant to SB 9 and the City’s SB 9 Interim Guidelines, the City Council is limited to reviewing the Coastal Development Permit findings.

The owner (San Pedro Valley, LLC - Mike O’Connell) and applicant (Mike Jimenez) propose a Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) urban lot split (ULS) to divide an approximately 7,289 square foot (SF) undeveloped parcel into two parcels and residential development permit (RDP) to construct a new single-family residence on each lot located on a vacant parcel along Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in the Pedro Point neighborhood (See Figure 1: Vicinity Map). Each new residence will have a one-car garage. The uses allowed on a lot created with a ULS shall be limited to residential uses. The Project site is a sloped, oddly shaped lot located on Olympian Way. Project plans are included as Attachment B.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map
The property is located in the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and is subject to a Coastal Development Permit for consideration.

The Planning Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit for the project at the September 16, 2024 Planning Commission regular meeting. The Planning Commission staff report and attachments for the September 16, 2024 meeting are incorporated by reference.

On September 24, 2024, the appellants (Ila and Ron Homsher; Kathy Gust; Don and Meredith Woods; Leo Leon and Kris Geiger) submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission approval.

State and City Statutory Requirements Related to Senate Bill 9:

The project proposed an urban lot split and development of two new units on each lot using the provisions of SB 9. The criteria, standards and requirements for projects under SB 9 are captured under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, and applicable objective standards within the Pacifica Municipal Code. The project is required to comply with the development standards of the R-1 zoning district, except as otherwise provided under SB 9 and Pacifica City Council 3
November 12, 2024
where such standards would not preclude the development of units of at least 800 square feet consistent with the standards under SB 9.

The project meets the requirements of SB 9 and the applicable requirements of the Pacifica Municipal Code, as summarized below and more expanded upon in the Planning Commission staff report for the September 16, 2024 meeting.

Locational Requirements:

The project was found to meet the locational requirements for SB 9 projects, as provided in the September 16, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report. The site is located in a single family residential zoning district and would not be located in areas mentioned under SB 9: Prime Farmland or farmland of statewide importance, wetlands, very high fire hazard severity zone, hazardous waste site, earthquake fault zone, flood hazard area (100-year flood), a regulatory floodway, lands identified for conservation, habitat for protected species, and land under a conservation easement.

Objective Standards:

The property is located in the R-1 Zoning District and required to comply with the development regulations of this zoning district while not precluding the construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet each in floor area and consistent with development standards such as setbacks and parking required by SB 9, shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Zoning Standards Conformance
R-1 & SB 9
Standards
Existing Proposed - Parcel
A
Proposed - Parcel B
Lot Size (sf) 1,200 sf per
parcel
7,289 sf 3,633 sf 3,653 sf
Floor Area 800 sf min1 N/A 2,220 sf 2,198 sf
Lot Coverage2 40% N/A 34.76% 36.02%
Minimum
Landscaping2
N/A N/A 57.63% 60.02%
Height 35’ max1 N/A 34’- 7 ¾” 34’ -11 ¾”
Parking 1 off-street
parking space
per unit1
N/A 1 off-street parking
space
1 off-street parking
space
Lot Width 50’ in width 75’ in width 37.5’ in width5 37.5’ in width5 SB 9 Setbacks
Front 15’-0” N/A 10’-0”3 4 10’-0”3 4
Side 4’-0”1 N/A 4’-0” 4’-0”
Rear 4’-0”1 N/A 57’-3 7/8” 62’- 8 5/8” and 4’-0”
Notes: 1. Development standards for SB 9 applications pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 11-2022.

2. The project complies with the lot coverage and landscaping requirements for the underlying zoning district. 3. PMC Section 9-4.2703 allows open porches to project no more than 6’ into the front setback. On this site, the open porches must have a minimum 9’ setback. The project proposed an open porch with a front setback of 10’-6” which complies with the minimum setbacks. 4. Per PMC Section 9-4.2704(b), residential lots that contain a slope greater than 25% on the front half, may build a garage within 10’ of the front lot line. The new parcels have a slope on the front half of 36%, and 40%, respectively. Note: average slope is <35% per the slope analysis. 5. PMC Section 9-4.402(c) requires lots to be a minimum of 50’ in width, and accordingly, the applicant is seeking a waiver of the lot width requirement for the two newly created parcels as this standard would have the effect of “physically precluding the construction of” up to two units on either of the two parcels, and accordingly, the City is required to waive this requirement under Government Code section 66411.7(c)(2).

Pacifica City Council 4
November 12, 2024
Through SB 9, the applicant sought waiver of the standard 50 foot minimum lot width under PMC Section 9-4.402(c), which would have the effect of physically precluding two newly created parcels. SB 9 provides for such a waiver to standards that would physically preclude the creation of the two lots.

Under SB9, a subdivision can create no more than two parcels, the parcels must be no less than 1,200 square feet, and one parcel may be no smaller than 40 percent of the original parcel.

Both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet, Parcel A is proposed as 3,633 sf and Parcel B is proposed as 3,653 sf. The project also does not involve aspects that may restrict development such as demolition of certain rental and affordable housing or location in a historic district or property.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Municipal Code
The project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) prior to issuance of a building permit because the project does not qualify as a category of excluded development since the SB 9 application is located within the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone [City Council Resolution No. 11-2022].

The project would not trigger additional requirements under PMC Sections 9-4.4403 - 9-4.4408 based on submitted information and project implementation of requirements. The project provides a biological assessment and confirms that the project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4403 (Habitat Preservation). To further the analysis of PMC Section 9-4.4404 (Geotechnical Suitability), the City obtained a topographic survey that verified the slopes of the parcel are less than 35% and this survey was peer reviewed by the City’s engineering consultants that confirmed accuracy and approved the slope analysis. The project includes requirements related to grading and drainage, thus, would not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4405 (Grading and Drainage). The project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4406 (Shoreline Protection) or PMC Section 9-4.4407 (Public Shoreline Access) as the property is not on the shoreline and the project is not impeding on public shoreline access. As designed the project would not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4408 (Coastal View Corridors) as the structures are sited to minimize alteration to natural topography, on the least visible area of the property, uses natural materials and includes landscaping to minimize visual impact of the new development.

Therefore, the project with implementation of requirements was found to be consistent and would not further trigger additional requirements of PMC Sections 9-4.4403 - 9-4.4408.

CDP Required Findings
In order to approve Coastal Development Permit CDP-454-23, City Council must make the two findings required by PMC Section 9-4.4304(k). The following discussion supports the findings in this regard:
i. Required Finding: The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and Implementation Plan (IP).

Pacifica City Council 5
November 12, 2024
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP)
The LCLUP contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. Applicable policies and references in the City’s LCLUP are discussed further below:
· Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

The proposed Project does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. The development will be undertaken on an existing vacant lot about 425 feet from the nearest coastal access point at Shelter Cove and about 1,815 feet from Pacifica State Beach. Between the sea and the project site, there is substantial urban development and several streets. Therefore, the Project would have no impact or otherwise interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea.
· Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. New housing in the Coastal Zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals of the local housing elements adopted in accordance with the requirements of · subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code. (H, LU)
The proposed ULS and RDP would create new housing opportunities within the existing Pedro Point neighborhood. The City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2023-2031 states that the City intends to amend the zoning ordinance and other local policies to remove any inconsistencies with State and Federal law, including but not limited to SB 9, through the future implementation of Program HE-I-14. The actions included in Program HE-I-14 addresses the fair housing issues of low production of affordable housing limiting housing choices of households who have lower incomes and disproportionate housing needs. SB 9, amongst many other housing laws, is intended to make it easier and faster to develop affordable housing. Therefore, the Project would be in conformance with Housing Element policy and State law by providing for SB 9 development consistent with allowances for Sb 9 projects under the State law and the Housing Element plans to complete zoning ordinance amendments for SB 9 compliance. · Coastal Act Policy No. 23: New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... [the remainder of this policy pertains to land divisions and visitor-serving facilities, neither of which are part of the subject Project.]
The Project would include development within an existing developed area. The Pedro Point neighborhood is a substantially developed neighborhood with subdivided lots, most of which have already been developed including the lots on either side of the Project site. The Project site has the capacity to serve all required utilities to support the existing and proposed development, including but not limited to water, sewer, electricity, and telecommunications. Therefore, the Project would include development within an Pacifica City Council 6
November 12, 2024
existing developed area which would not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources.
· Coastal Act Policy No. 24: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those described in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan, prepared by the department of Parks and Recreation and by local government, shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The subject site has a down slope from Olympian Way, while the project proposes a maximum height of just under 35 feet, from Olympian Way the new residences will appear as single-story structures. Because the entire neighborhood is subject to similar slopes, many of the residences on Olympian Way use similar construction methods to build multi-level homes that appear as single-story from the public right-of-way. This type of construction method reduces the visual impact. The proposed residences would be visually compatible with the character of residential buildings in the surrounding area.

Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a coastal view corridor as designated in the LCLUP and, therefore, PMC sec. 9-4.4408 is not applicable to the Project. For all the reasons provided above, the Project would be consistent with Coastal Act Policy No. 24 and would not impact scenic and visual qualities of a coastal area. · Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall (a) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. [the remainder of this policy pertains to air pollution, energy consumption, protection of special communities, none of which would conflict with the Project.] a. The Project proposes an ULS and RDP on an undeveloped parcel for the development of two new residence lots and construction of a single-family residence on each lot. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (Attachment B) that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to minimize risk to life and property due to geologic hazards. The Project site is not located on an area of geotechnical hazard as referenced in the certified LCLUP, however is immediately adjacent to an area with potential slope failure threat from landslides and in a landslide zone from the 2040 General Plan. A geotechnical report prepared for the site finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. The Project site is not located in a high flood area as shown on the FEMA flood maps. The project is not located in a high fire hazard area as shown in the adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project site is in a Very Low Liquefaction Zone. For the reasons provided above, the location of the Project would minimize future risks associated with areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazards.

Pacifica City Council 7
November 12, 2024
b. The proposed project will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to ensure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

Implementation Plan
The City’s certified Local Coastal Program also includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As summarized above in the Project description, the proposed Project would comply with applicable setback, height, and other requirements of the Article 4.5 (PMC Section 9-4.453(c)). Also discussed above, the Project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4403 (Habitat Preservation), PMC Section 9-4.4404 (Geotechnical Suitability), PMC Section 9-4.4405 (Grading and drainage), PMC Section 9-

4.4406 (Shoreline Protection), PMC Section 9-4.4407 (Public shoreline access), and PMC Section 9-4.4408 (Coastal View Corridors).

For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. ii. Required Finding: Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CDP AND MINISTERIAL APPROVAL

OF ULS AND RDP
The appellants provided four reasons for the appeal in the appeal form (Attachment A), which are summarized and addressed by staff below.

Basis 1. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 9-4.4306 and California Coastal Act 30603 in publishing the June 7, 2024 notice of proposed development.

The appellants argued that the Community Development Director may not issue an Administrative Coastal Development for the proposed project.

Staff Analysis:

The project was initially reviewed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Pacifica City Council 8
November 12, 2024
the City’s Interim SB 9 Guidelines. But pursuant to consultation with California Coastal Commission staff, the entitlement was reclassified as a Coastal Development Permit without a public hearing, and brought to Planning Commission on September 16, 2024 for review as a Coastal Development Permit, per PMC Section 9-4.4304. Thus, because this project was not processed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit, this basis of appeal lacks merit.

Basis 2. The development is not consistent with the LCLUP regarding Urban Lot Splits.

The appellants argued that the project must be sited and designed to be safe from hazards and its land divisions would create parcels whose only buildable area would be on slopes in excess of 35 percent which are prohibited. Appellants also indicated there was correspondence between the City and California Coastal Commission on May 17, 2022 that urged the City to analyze work in the right of way.

Staff Analysis:

In the memorandum prepared by Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, the land surveyor provided explanations of topographic surveys conducted for the site and each of the proposed parcels. Initial surveys in December 2020 were redone to replace supplemental County contour data used previously due to heavy vegetation over part of the site with new spot elevations to increase the accuracy of the survey. The survey’s concluded that the parcels resulting from the proposed split would have an average slope of 32.15 and 31.7 percent.

Therefore, they would be less than the 35 percent and comply with the development standards of PMC Section 9-4.4404(d)(1).

Road work within the right of way is exempt from Coastal Development Permits under PMC Section 9-4.4303 and off-site improvements are not required pursuant to SB 9. However, staff has reached out to California Coastal Commission who are aware of the project, and analysis of details regarding work in the right of way would be conducted through the encroachment permit as a standard requirement and part of the standard permit process. The project will provide design level plans and specifications for work in the right of way as a standard requirement for the encroachment permit needed to conduct the work. The City Engineer has conducted preliminary review of the proposed work and will review design level plans and specifications for consistency with the proposed design and engineering standards. Thus, because this project is consistent with slope calculation requirements and construction plans are required to incorporate geotechnical recommendations and meet building and engineering standards for safe construction, this basis of appeal lacks merit.

Basis 3. Slopes Calculations Exceed Standard and Right of Way Should be Included in Calculations
The appellants argued analysis was not done to ensure slope was within 35 percent for land divisions. Slope was calculated for Lot A. Slope was shown to be 36.73 percent on Sheet A3.4 of the plan set. New parcels have slopes on the front half of the respective lots showing 36 percent and 40 percent. The appellants also argue that slope calculation is not accurate because it does not include slope of the right of way and should be analyzed because it is incorporated into the project.

Staff Analysis
As noted above, the Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, provided analysis of slopes and determined average slopes of the lots would be below 35 percent. The 36.73 percent on Sheet A3.4 of the plan set is a calculation to justify the reduced setback for the slope Pacifica City Council 9
November 12, 2024
in the front portion of the lot and is based on rise over run, per PMC Section 9-4.2704. The Section provides that a private garage may be built to within ten feet of the front lot line where the slope of the front half of any residential lot is greater 25 percent. These slope measurements capture the slope at a portion of the lot for setback calculation purposes. In contrast, average slope considers the whole lot, and the average slope formula that has been used in the municipal code is provided as:

S= 0.00229 IL / A
Where I = Contour interval in feet, not to exceed ten (10′) feet; L = Situation of length of contour lines in feet; and
A = Area in acres of the site or parcel being considered.

Slope calculations under the Zoning Code generally cover regulations for areas within the parcel lines and do not include the right of way. Thus, because this project is consistent with the standard process for slope calculations, this basis of appeal lacks merit.

Basis 4. The Drainage and Soil Stability System Requires Revisions and Analysis The appellants argue that there should be no stormwater detention percolation system in the top six to eight feet of soil comprising the slope without rigorous slope stability analysis and percolation testing.

Staff Analysis
The applicant’s preliminary geotechnical report has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the analysis and recommendations were found to support the feasibility of the proposed development. It is unclear what the detention percolation system referenced in the appeals means, as the City Engineer indicates that the system proposed is a detention system. The detention system would temporarily capture and release water to slow the rate of flow. The proposed system would be able to manage flow rates so that they would not exceed pre-project conditions. A percolation system would be a different system that functions for retention purposes and retaining water on-site. The City Engineer has indicated that percolation testing would not apply as the project is not using a percolation system. Slope stability and recommendations for design on slopes are evaluated through the project’s geotechnical report.

A design level geotechnical report and plans will be submitted as part of the building permit application to verify construction plans match the approved design, as condition, and meets engineering standards. Thus, because this project is required to meet drainage requirements and slope stability requirements which would be verified in construction plans by the City Engineer, this basis of appeal lacks merit.

CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.4305, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Coastal Development Permit based on compliance with the following findings: (1) The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program; (2) Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The Council cannot make any changes to the Project unless it lacks compliance with SB 9 standards. .

In the event that the Council determines to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the Planning Commission, the Council should consider adoption of the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to approve the appeal, based solely on CDP-related findings, Pacifica City Council 10 November 12, 2024
Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence. A Resolution denying the application would then be brought back to Council at a later date.

The project is located within the Coastal Zone, Appeals Zone. Appeals of a City Council decision will be considered by the California Coastal Commission.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis of the project supports a City Council finding that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15268 and Public Resource Code Section 21080(b)(1). The Project qualifies as a “Ministerial Project” provided in Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Any application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(a) and Public Resource Code Section 21080(b)(1). Section 15268 states in part:
a) Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The determination of what is “ministerial” can most appropriately be made by the particular public agency involved based upon its analysis of its own laws, and each public agency should make such determination either as a part of its implementing regulations or on a case-by-case basis.

The proposal to authorize an urban lot split for an undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct a single-family residence on each new lot fits within the scope of a “Ministerial Project” under a statutory exemption. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the requirements for a statutory exemption as any application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The Project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s 2024-25 Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to review and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City related to the recommendation.

ORIGINATED BY:

Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Appeal Statement (PDF)
Attachment B - Project Plans (PDF)
Pacifica City Council 11 November 12, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL OF FILE NO. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) AND UPHOLDING 1) THE

MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF THE URBAN LOT SPLIT AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND 2) PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AT OLYMPIAN WAY (APN 023-037-030), AND

FINDING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Michael Jimenez, Applicant
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to authorize an urban lot split for approximately 7,289 square foot undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct one singlefamily residence on each new located on a parcel on Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in Pacifica (File No. 2024-004) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a coastal development permit; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statues of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single family zone into two parcels, or both; and WHEREAS, the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15268 and Public Resource Code Section 21080(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed regular Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence, presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica adopted a resolution to approve the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, Ila and Ron Homsher; Kathy Gust; Don and Meredith Woods; Leo Leon and Kris Geiger (“Appellants”) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval on September 24, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public meeting on November 12, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

Pacifica City Council 12 November 12, 2024
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the appeal and uphold the approval of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report, and makes the following findings pertaining to these Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:

Basis 1. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 9-4.4306 and California Coastal Act 30603 in publishing the June 7, 2024 notice of proposed development.

Finding: The project was initially reviewed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit pursuant to the City’s Interim SB 9 Guidelines. But pursuant to consultation with California Coastal Commission staff, the entitlement was reclassified as a Coastal Development Permit without a public hearing, and brought to Planning Commission on September 16, 2024 for review as a Coastal Development Permit, per PMC Section 9-4.4304. Thus, because this project was not processed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit, this basis of appeal lacks merit.

Basis 2. The development is not consistent with the LCLUP regarding Urban Lot Splits.

Finding: In the memorandum prepared by Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, the land surveyor provided explanations of topographic surveys conducted for the site and each of the proposed parcels. Initial surveys in December 2020 were redone to replace supplemental County contour data used previously due to heavy vegetation over part of the site with new spot elevations to increase the accuracy of the survey. Parcel resulting from the proposed split would be 32.15 and 31.7.

Basis 3. Slopes Calculations Exceed Standard and Right of Way Should be Included in Calculations
Findings: As noted above, the Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, provided analysis of slopes and determined average slopes of the lots would be below 35 percent. The

36.73 percent on Sheet A3.4 of the plan set is a calculation to justify the reduced setback for the slope in the front portion of the lot and is based on rise over run, per PMC Section 9-4.2704.

The Section provides that a private garage may be built to within ten feet of the front lot line where the slope of the front half of any residential lot is greater 25 percent. These slope measurements capture the slope at a portion of the lot for setback calculation purposes. In contrast, average slope considers the whole lot, and the average slope formula that has been used in the municipal code is provided as:

S= 0.00229 IL / A
Where I = Contour interval in feet, not to exceed ten (10′) feet; L = Situation of length of contour lines in feet; and
Pacifica City Council 13 November 12, 2024
A = Area in acres of the site or parcel being considered.

Basis 4. The Drainage and Soil Stability System Requires Revisions and Analysis Finding: The applicant’s preliminary geotechnical report has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the analysis and recommendations were found to support the feasibility of the proposed development. It is unclear what the detention percolation system referenced in the appeal means, as the City Engineer indicates that the system proposed is a detention system. A percolation system would be a different system that functions differently. The proposed system would be able to manage flow rates so that they would not exceed pre-project conditions. A design level geotechnical report and plans will be submitted as part of the building permit application to verify construction plans match the approved design, as condition, and meets engineering standards. Thus, because this project is required to meet drainage requirements and slope stability requirements which would be verified in construction plans by the City Engineer, this basis of appeal lacks merit.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Coastal Development Permit CDP-465-24 as required by PMC section 9-4.4304(k) and PMC section 9-4.4306(m)(3):
i. Required Finding: The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and Implementation Plan (IP).

Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP)
The LCLUP contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. Applicable policies and references in the City’s LCLUP are discussed further below:
• Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

The proposed Project does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. The development will be undertaken on an existing vacant lot about 425 feet from the nearest coastal access point at Shelter Cove and about 1,815 feet from Pacifica State Beach. Between the sea and the project site, there is substantial urban development and several streets. Therefore, the Project would have no impact or otherwise interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. New housing in the Coastal Zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals of the local housing elements adopted in accordance Pacifica City Council 14 November 12, 2024
with the requirements of · subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code. (H, LU)
The proposed ULS and RDP would create new housing opportunities within the existing Pedro Point neighborhood. The City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2023-2031 states that the City intends to amend the zoning ordinance and other local policies to remove any inconsistencies with State and Federal law, including but not limited to SB 9, through the future implementation of Program HE-I-14. The actions included in Program HE-I-14 addresses the fair housing issues of low production of affordable housing limiting housing choices of households who have lower incomes and disproportionate housing needs. SB 9, amongst many other housing laws, to make it easier and faster to develop affordable housing. Therefore, the Project would support the Housing Element policy to provide lower cost housing opportunities.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 23: New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... [the remainder of this policy pertains to land divisions and visitor-serving facilities, neither of which are part of the subject Project.]
The Project would include development within an existing developed area. The Pedro Point – Shelter Cove neighborhood is a substantially developed neighborhood with subdivided lots, most of which have already been developed including the lots on either side of the Project site. The Project site has the capacity to serve all required utilities to support the existing and proposed development, including but not limited to water, sewer, electricity, and telecommunications. Therefore, the Project would include development within an existing developed area which would not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 24: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those described in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan, prepared by the department of Parks and Recreation and by local government, shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

Pacifica City Council 15 November 12, 2024
• Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall (a) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. [the remainder of this policy pertains to air pollution, energy consumption, protection of special communities, none of which would conflict with the Project.] a. The Project proposes a ULS and RDP on an undeveloped parcel for the development of two new residence lots and construction of a single-family residence on each lot. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (Attachment C) that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to minimize risk to life and property due to geologic hazards. The Project site is not located on an area of geotechnical hazard1 as referenced in the certified LCLUP, however is immediately adjacent to an area with potential slope failure area of most landslides.

Although located adjacent to a geotechnical hazard, the geotechnical report finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. The Project site is not located in a high flood area as shown on the FEMA flood maps2. The project is not located in a high fire hazard area as shown in the adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project site is in a Very Low Liquefaction Zone. For the reasons provided above, the location of the Project would minimize future risks associated with areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazards.
b. The proposed project will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to ensure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

4.5 (PMC Section 9-4.453(c)). Also discussed above, the Project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4403 (Habitat Preservation), PMC Section 9-4.4404 (Geotechnical Suitability), PMC Section 9-4.4405 (Grading and drainage), PMC Section 9- 1 Geotechnical Hazard Figure Page 99 of Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the 1980 General Plan as referenced on page C-102 of the certified 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan 2 FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. TBD Olympian Way is not located within any mapped Flood Zone, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. Search conducted on May 29, 2024.

Pacifica City Council 16 November 12, 2024

4.4406 (Shoreline Protection), PMC Section 9-4.4407 (Public shoreline access), and PMC Section 9-4.4408 (Coastal View Corridors).

For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
ii. Required Finding: Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the appeal and uphold the approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP465-24, Urban Lot Split ULS-009-24, and Residential Development Permit RDP-005-24 to authorize an urban lot split for approximately 7,289 square foot undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct one single-family residence on each new located on a parcel on Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in Pacifica (File No. 2024-004), subject to requirements included in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney Pacifica City Council 17 November 12, 2024
Exhibit A
Requirements: File No. 2024-004 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-465-24 to authorize an urban lot split for approximately 7,289 square foot undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct one single-family residence on each new located on a parcel on Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in Pacifica (File No. 2024-004) Planning Division of the Community Development Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “Tentative Parcel Map – Urban Lot Split BEING OF SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 39, 40, 41 OF BLOCK 18 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS PG 60 CITY OF PACIFICA, SAN MATEO COUNTY,” dated December 20, 2023; “New 2-Story Single Family Home TBD Olympian Way Parcel A,” dated January 26, 2024; and “New 2-Story Single Family Home TBD Olympian Way Parcel B,” dated January 26, 2024, except as modified by the following requirements:

2. The approval letter issued by the City and all requirements attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.

3. The Applicant/property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property owner shall clearly indicate compliance with all requirements on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.

5. The applicant/property owner is required to pay outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project prior to the issuance of a building permit.

6. The applicant/property owner shall submit a Final Parcel Map to the Engineering Division ([email protected]) for approval by the City Engineer. The map shall show and set all required monumentation on the map prior to recordation of the map.

7. The applicant/property owner shall submit a deed restriction to be recorded on each new parcel to reflect the restriction of use to residential only.

Pacifica City Council 18 November 12, 2024

8. The applicant/property owner shall complete an Owner Occupancy Affidavit to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the Final Map.

Building Division of the Community Development Department

9. The applicant/property owner shall apply for and obtain approval of a building permit prior to commencing any construction activity.

Engineering Division of the Public Works Department

10. The applicant/property owner shall submit all necessary documents to review and record parcel map, including but not limited to surveys, soils report, tax report, deeds for easement or rights-of-ways, traverse closures, and any other information required by the City Engineer.

11. The applicant/property owner shall submit construction drawings and verify that construction is in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the project plans.

12. The applicant/property owner shall submit an Erosion Control Plan prior to issuance of the Building Permit, .

13. The applicant/property owner shall verify that the proposed sanitary sewer system and storm drain system elements, including detention facilities, shall be privately maintained up to their connections to the existing mains on the proposed utility plans.

14. Prior to approval, applicant/property owner shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but not limited to:
a. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.
b. Plan, profile and cross sections of each parcel.
c. Design Geotechnical Report analyzing the proposed on-site and off-site improvements including but not limited to the driveways and storm drains. d. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

15. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant/property owner shall provide hydraulic calculations indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development conditions. Any stormwater runoff that exceeds the predevelopment condition must be detained onsite.

16. Prior to any construction activity, the Engineer or Geologist, of record, shall be present on-site during the excavation, grading, and foundation installation phases of the project and the applicant/property owner shall submit a written certification that the project grading and foundation improvement plans has been implemented as approved by the City’s Engineering Division.

17. The applicant/property owner shall submit subdivision and improvement plans that must be peer reviewed by a consultant for the City. The plans must demonstrate that the Pacifica City Council 19 November 12, 2024
project is compliant with current standards for civil engineering, seismic and geological engineering. The City’s consultant must be able to recommend that the project be approved, as is or with recommended changes. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for the cost of the peer review, including the costs of staff time and any services determined to be necessary by the City Engineer.

18. The applicant/property owner shall submit a traffic control plan (TCP) for review and approval by the City Engineering Division prior to the start of construction activity. The TCP shall include the following and any other information as deemed necessary by the City Engineer upon review of the TCP:
a. Identification of the path of travel for delivery trucks to and from the project site.

This travel-path shall be shown starting from and returning to the City’s designated truck route or the City limits and starting from and returning to the offload location at the project site.
b. Identification of a “turn-around” area for delivery trucks on site. All open-bed trucks shall be tarped.
c. Identification of all on- and off-site worker parking locations, including any carpool pick-up and drop-off locations.
d. Identification of an access lane of not less than 11 feet in width between parked vehicles and equipment at all times for emergency vehicle access. e. Staging and storing of equipment and materials in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless authorized with an encroachment permit. f. Lane closure shall only be permitted with prior approval from the Department of Public Works and requested from the Department no less than 72 hours in advance of schedule and coordinated with Pacifica Police, Pacifica Fire Department, and Recology. The contractor shall provide the affected properties with written notice no less than 10 days in advance of road closure. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along Olympian Way. g. The TCP shall include a note indicative of these requirements.

19. The applicant/property owner shall seek approvals and/or agreements that shall be obtained from all public or private utilities. A dedication of easements shall be recorded and run with the property.

20. The applicant/property owner shall provide plans that indicate the improvements are consistent, approved by, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the requirements. All construction shall meet the latest California Building Code, California Fire Code, City of Pacifica Municipal Code and the City Standard Specifications and Drawings. Securities for all required improvements, and applicable fees and charges, shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain all required permits before commencing work. All required improvements shall be constructed at no cost to the City except where specifically agreed to by the City under the provisions of a written agreement. Grading and improvement plan review and approval by the City Engineer are required before any City Permit is issued. The improvement plans shall include details for on‐site and off‐site improvements for vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, traffic signs and markings, utility service connections, modifications and extension of the City’s sewer, storm drain, safety lighting, landscaping, and other public service and common facilities. All utility services shall be underground unless otherwise approved. Said improvements shall conform to City of Pacifica and affected Agency’s standards.

21. The applicant/property owner shall submit plans that indicate and show all stormwater detention, stormwater treatment, or other stormwater BMP improvements shall be located outside of the public right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. The Pacifica City Council 20 November 12, 2024
plans shall also show all privately owned and maintained improvements shall be located outside of the public right-of-way. There shall be no private improvements within the public right-of-way. Stormwater measures shall be covered under a separate Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and to run with the property. The Maintenance Agreement shall burden the Applicant to maintain all covered improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

22. The applicant/property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit before any work is performed within city right-of-way, public easements, or utility easements.

23. The applicant/property owner shall submit a statement that agrees to all roadways to be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Olympian Way. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.

24. The applicant/property owner shall submit a statement that agrees to existing street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that are damaged or displaced will be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project.

25. The applicant/property owner shall provide “will serve letters” from North Coast County Water District for water service. In addition, the applicant/property owner shall submit documentation of “will serve letters” from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for electric services.

26. The applicant/property owner shall complete a deferred improvements agreement for the improvements on Olympian Way prior to issuance of building permit.

27. The applicant/property owner provide a stormwater maintenance agreement that addresses vector control and debris removal for the proposed stormwater facilities prior to issuance of building permit.

28. The applicant/property owner shall complete a maintenance agreement for all private structures, including but not limited to walls, curbs, and fences within the City right-ofway prior to issuance of building permit.

29. The applicant/property owner shall show on the plan set that a 3’ slurry or a t-trench per Pacifica Details is proposed to the edge of the sawcut for the widened roadway to mitigate water intrusion with the widened roadway.

Arborist Division of the Public Works Department

30. The applicant/property owner must submit a Tree Encroachment Permit for the Protected Trees within 50 feet of the proposed construction that will be preserved. For the one Heritage Tree to be removed as part of the construction process, the Applicant shall submit a Tree Removal Permit.

North County Fire Authority

31. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings and verify compliance with California Fire & Building Codes as well as, Pacifica Municipal Code.

Pacifica City Council 21 November 12, 2024

32. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings and verify compliance ensuring that all access roads and required aerial access setbacks are provided as per CFC Appendix D. Olympian Way does not meet access width of 20’ minimum. An AMMR is required for access width and Fire Department turn-around provisions on a dead-end street. A separate AMMR is required for each code requirement. Apply for Alternate Methods/Materials Requests (AMMR) with NCFA.

33. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings that indicate the Fire sprinkler systems as required. In addition, the applicant/property owner shall submit plans under separate fire permit.

34. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings that indicate fire flow information per CFC, Appendix B.

35. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings that indicate illuminated address identification as required.
***END***

Pacifica City CouncilNovember 12, 2024

Pacifica City Council
November 12, 2024