UNor PACIC
City of Pacifica RECEIVED
APPEAL FORM SEP 2 4 2024
INSTRUCTIONS: TO FILE AN APPEAL, COMPLETE THIS FORM AND FILE IT WITH THE CITY CLEBTYFOLIERIK HALL, 170 SANTA MARIA AVE, PACIFICA, CA 94044, NO LATER THAN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION (POSTMARK DATE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED), TOGETHER WITH ANY REQUIRED APPEAL FEE. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE HEARING DATE FOR YOUR APPEAL.
FEES: $592.00 FOR APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL (FY 2024-25); $450 TREE PERMIT APPEAL FEE (FY 2024-25) APPELLANT: FILL IN BLANKS AND CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES BELOW. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. ($592.00 FEE IS REQUIRED PER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION(S), APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR /
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS)
PROPOSED PROJECT: APPELLANT:
Title/Name: FileNo.2024-004, CDP-465-24,ULS-009-2 Name: lla Homsher and, see attached Address: TBD Olympian Way, APN 023-037-030 Address: See attached Applicant/Developer: San Pedro Valley, LLC, Mike O'C‹ Phone (Day): 650-653-1996 DECISION OF (check one): DECISION DATE: 9/14/2024 Email Address: /[email protected], • Planning Commission Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division • City Staff (Title):
DECISION AT ISSUE: APPROVAL or • DENIAL of:
Use Permit Site Development Permit Tentative Subdivision Map • Animal Permit EIR or Negative Declaration Coastal Development Permit Administrative Decision Variance Parking Exception Home Occupation Permit Tree Permit • other ULS, RDP DESCRIBE DECISION BEING APPEALED:
Ministerial Urban Lot Split, Residential Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit. On 9/16/20224 the Planning Commission Received and Filed the Report on the above mentioned projects on the Consent Agenda.
DESCRIBE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
Planning Officials did not adhere to Pacifica Municipal Code PMC Section 9-4306 and the California Coastal Act 30603. The development is not consistent with the LCLUP.
The City failed to provide complete slope calculations to justify a ULS and CDP.
Drainage and Soil Stability were not adequately addressed. See attached.
APPELLANT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ITEM BEING APPEALED? (check one):
• Project Applicant • Neighbor • Concerned Citizen Other APPELLANT'S SIGNATURE: * lla Hamsher DATE: 9/24/2024
Received By:/ Fee Paid: • Cash Check • online
a/24/2024 Pl amt 8592.00 Receipt #_169
Receipt Date:
by cheek #3669
City Clerk's Office Use Only Rev. 07/01/2024
Appeal Attachment
City of Pacifica
File No. 2024-004, Coastal Development Permit CDP-465-24, Urban Lot Split ULS-009- 24, Residential Development Permit RDP-005-24
Appellants:
Ila and Ron Homsher, [email protected] 650-653-1996 155 Olympian Way, Pacifica
Kathy Gust, [email protected], 650-208-0203
140 Essex Way, Pacifica
Don and Meredith Woods, [email protected],650-270-0907
131 Olympian Way, Pacifica
Leo Leon and Kris Geiger, [email protected], 415-570-1855 111 Olympian Way, Pacifica
Describe Grounds for Appeal:
In publishing the June 7, 2024, Notice of Proposed Development Pacifica Planning officials did not adhere to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) section 9-4-4306 and the California Coastal Act 30603.
In reviewing the City of Pacifica Ordinance, Administrative coastal development permit and the California Coastal Act, we found limitations on the Planning Director for the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. The specific citations are contained in PMC Sec. 9-4.4306 (b) (1) and California Coastal Act 30603 (a) (2).
Sec.9-4.4306 (b) (1) Limitations.
The Director may not issue an administrative permit if the proposed development; ..... is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to California Coastal Act, section 30603. We reviewed section 30603 for any applicable types of appealable developments.
We found one type, 30603 (a) (2) "or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward facing face of any coastal bluff."
To verify the Proposed Project was within 300 feet of the nearest seaward facing bluff, we went to Google maps and used their distance tool to measure the distance. We found the project at TBD Olympian Way is well within the 300 feet of a seaward facing bluff top at the end of the Olympian Way Right of Way.
This development is not consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) regarding Urban Lot Splits.
Urban Lot Splits - Project must be sited and designed to be safe from hazards- Protection of Landforms states - Land divisions which would create parcels whose only buildable- area would be on ridgetops or slopes in excess of 35 percent shall be prohibited.
Page C-103
PROTECTION OF LANDFORMS - Three prominent landforms dominate Pacifica's Coastal Zone: Mori Point, The Headlands and Point San Pedro. These promontories~ overlain with fragile coastal scrub vegetation, visually represent the nature of the shoreline and the coastal character of Pacifica. Conclusions for the protection of these prominent topographic features include:
Development shall be prohibited on prominent ridgel lines, slopes in excess of 35 percent and highly visible tops of prominent landforms, unless there is no other buildable area on the parcel.
If permitted, development shall be clustered and contoured into the existing natural slope and of a design, density and scale -which is subordinate to the landform and minimize grading for access. (See Background Report of geotechnical data and 197.9 General Plan for prominent ridgeline designations and above Geotechnical Section).
Grading shall be regulated to protect the appearance of the landform and to limit potential runoff.
Native vegetation shall be protected. In areas disturbed by development, re vegetation shall occur promptly with native or low maintenance natural vegetation to reduce erosion potential; landscaping plans should be required.
Land divisions which would create parcels whose only buildable areas would be on ridge tops or slopes in' excess of 35 percent shall be prohibited.
In correspondence from the Coastal Commission staff to City of Pacifica on May 17, 2022 the Staff urged the City to include the work in the Right-Of-Way in the evaluation of this project.
1. "As the Appellant noted, the right-of-way work is not included in the listed scope of this CDP application despite fact that the right-of-way work is mentioned in the provided plans and referenced in the Planning Condition's adopted conditions of approval (see condition 25) for the CDP. We urge City staff to include and analyze the proposed work in the adjacent right-of-way within this CDP application, as such work constitutes development as defined in the certified LCP and Coastal Act."
In each of the Proposed lot Developments, the Project require accessing, developing and permanently incorporating structures built in the Right-Of-Way into the Project. These are clearly presented and shown in the Project drawings submitted by the Applicant.
Moreover, Coastal Commission Staff stated such work constitutes development as defined in the certified LCP and Coastal Act.
Slope and Right of Way Calculations
Staff ignored the request of the Coastal Commission Staff to analyze the work in the Public Right of Way along with the Proposed Development. By not doing so, the analysis of the Slope was not done to ensure consistency with Land divisions prohibited on slopes in excess of 35% as specified in the LCLUP.
Slope Calculations submitted and included in the Consent item File No. 2024-004 do not verify that the Project Slope is less than 35%.
The report included from Professional Land Services only addresses Lot A.
In exhibit A3.4 on Packet Page 148 the slope is indicated to be 36.73%. Upon review the slope calculations show inclusion of the slope in the Public Right of Way. Thus, resulting in a slope greater the 35%.
On Packet Page 98 of the September 16, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report in Notes
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 line.
The new parcels have a slope on the front half of 36%, and 40%, respectively. Note:
average slope is less than 35% per slope analysis. We feel that this calculation is not accurate because it does not include the slope of the City owned Right of Way in the calculation of the Slope. We contend the Slope of the City owned Right of Way needs to be analyzed with the project because it is incorporated into the Project.
We contend that the approval of the project is not consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan because it creates two lots, each with slopes in excess of 35%. "Land divisions which would create parcels whose only buildable areas would be on ridge tops or slopes in excess of 35 percent shall be prohibited." Drainage and Soil Stability
An evaluation strongly indicated that there should be no storm water detention percolation system, as proposed, in the top 6 to 8 feet of soil comprising the slope without rigorous slope stability analysis of the upper soils as well as positive percolation testing of those soils. It also referred to the project geotechnical report that stated: "a percolation style dissipation system is not permitted for use at the site".
We therefore urge you, our City Council, to uphold our appeal.