Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Sorry, just one minute please. We all ready? All right, good evening everyone and welcome to the February 17th Planning Commission meeting. Before we get started, I wanted to announce due to unexpected technical difficulties, we are unable to connect this hearing over Zoom. You can participate in the hearing by attending in person, and the hearing is being broadcast on PCT Channel 26 or PacificCoast.tv. We apologize for this unexpected situation. So with that said, can we have a roll call, please? Chair Berman? Present.

Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Godwin.

Present.

Commissioner Hauser is absent. Commissioner Redfield.

Present.

And Commissioner Davis.

Present. All right. And since it's my first meeting back since having a baby, I will go ahead and lead us to the salute to the flag. All right, next is administrative business. Before we take the items on administrative business, are there any public comments on the administrative business? So that's approval, of order of agenda, approval of minutes January 20th, or designation of liaison, which it looks like there probably is none. Let's see. I have a few cards here. All right. So no comment on, or public comments on administrative business. So we'll start with approval of the order of agenda. Is there a motion or a request regarding the order of agenda?

I move to approve the agenda as noted. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

That motion was made by Commissioner Ferguson and second by Commissioner Redfield, and that motion passed unanimously.

Thank you. Next is approval of meeting minutes for the January 20th, 2026 meeting. Are there any comments, questions, or a motion to approve?

Make a motion we approve the minutes from the January 20th meeting. I'll second it.

Seconded by Commissioner Godwin. Please vote.

That motion was made by Commissioner Redfield and seconded by Commissioner Godwin. And that motion passed unanimously.

Thank you. I'm sure it's clear to everyone, but for organizational purposes, can Commissioner Ferguson's card be switched one down? Thank you. Yeah.

Just keep voting on the one that you're voting. OK.

Designation of liaison. Looks like there is none. Is that still correct?

Deputy Director Christensen here. For city council, upcoming city council meetings, there is a hearing for 650 Cape Breton on council agenda for February 23rd. And we have Commissioner Davis as the liaison. And that's all I have noted.

Okay. Does that still work for you, Commissioner Davis? Great. Thank you for participating in that. All right. Next up, we're on to oral communications. Before we get started, I'm going to read a script. It's over here. All right. Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. And comments on agendized items must relate to that specific item. Sorry. If comments do not fall into one of these categories, the city will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic. If the warning is not followed, the mayor will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphones, or the city staff, since we don't have the clerk present. And throughout this warning system, I will seek the assistance of the city attorney or staff in identifying comments not related to the agenda item or not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. All right. So with that, are there any public comments on non-agendized items? I have a few cards here, but they're all for agendized items.

All right. Oh, yeah, Colin? I believe, sorry, is this for consent? Oh, sorry, never mind. Who was that? I believe there's one additional that is not for the item one for 1212 Escalero.

This is for the agendized item number one, correct? Sorry, thank you. Sorry. Okay. And just to be clear, are we taking call-ins, or is that that intermingles with Zoom, so no? No. No? Okay, we are not. Yeah, so just a reminder, we unfortunately do not have Zoom available tonight, so the only public comments we are able to receive are in-person public comments. All right, I'll close the public comment portion. for oral communications. And now we're on to consent items. So we have two items on the consent calendar. So I'll ask if there are any public comments on the consent calendar as a whole. I have a few cards up here. If anyone has not submitted a yellow card yet, please fill one out and provide it to staff. All right, I will start reading cards. All right. Sorry. First is Erin Gregory. And next will be Scott Hage.

Hello, thank you. So I am talking about number two, 2025-047. I am the owner of 184 Paloma, which is the property right next to the property being talked about, 170 Paloma. We're really excited that there might be something new built there, a nice new beautiful house, maybe a beautiful house with an ADU, but the subdivision aspect of the proposal is a little difficult, both for the sake that my property The bedrooms of my house, all the bedrooms of my house are going to go right alongside a 70-foot driveway that is being built to access the parcel B, the house in the back. So basically what that means is as far as this wall is from me, cars will be driving by the bedrooms of my house at any hours of the day to access the parcel in the back. So basically a road. right outside our bedroom windows. So that's a little difficult. I don't live in the house. I have amazing tenants in there right now. I think they may or may not be here or showing up. I know that's going to bum them out. It's going to bum out anyone I rent that house to later on. It's going to bum my wife and I out when we retire and move into that little tiny house someday. In regards to the subdivision, It seems to qualify for subdivision if you look in the rules of this California title, whatever it is that it's basically getting proof through. Number eight says the development of a housing development project on the lot proposed to the subdivided does not require the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing. Scroll down and you'll find that C, housing occupied by tenants within the five years preceding the date of the application, including housing that has been demolished or the tenants that vacated prior to the submission of the application and development permit. So I know you guys can't answer and maybe I'm a little confused on that, but it sounds like that means the house had to have been vacant for five years before this. which the house was not. The person moved out in November. He's been there for decades. So the house next door was not vacant, which according to how I'm reading this, disqualifies it to be a subdivision. Is that correct? I know you can't answer, but anyways, that's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Scott Hage. And After Scott will be Nancy Corrigan.

Good evening. I'm Scott Haig. I live at 164 Paloma, the house on the other side of the project. Aaron Gregory just referenced at 170 Paloma Avenue. I have a couple of comments. First is just the process of how we were notified as neighbors of this property. The notice was sent out, was mailed on February 6th. That's a Friday. We received it in the mail on the following Monday, the 9th, in the afternoon. I personally didn't open mine up until the next day, the 10th. The planning office is closed on Fridays, and this Monday was a holiday. So essentially, as residents, we were given three days notice to request these plans, review them, do all of our research and come up with questions and comments for you all, which seems wholly unacceptable to give people three days notice. So that would be my first comment. Second, to echo What Aaron said, the government code 66499.41 subsection says that the project can't be to demolish a home that was occupied within the last five years, which it was. He was a retired vet. He was forced out of that home in November, and so that should disqualify the subdivision of this tiny 4,500 square foot lot. I have a bunch of other concerns about the project, but those are my two primary. I'm going to be directly affected by two homes running the full length of the property, 29 feet high, towering over my house. taking away all of our sunlight. There's also a heritage tree on the property and I'm told by the planner that no heritage permit was requested to remove that tree. So there's a lot of concerns with this project and seems that it should be at a minimum postponed before being voted on tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Nancy Corrigan. Next will be Mark . Sorry, I'm terrible with names. I'm sorry.

Thank you for this. I am actually here to talk in support of the 1212 Escalero project, but I didn't know if you wanted to have that presentation first or if you wanted to hear comments about it first.

We aren't supposed to talk back, but for clarification, we'll take the comment first, because since it's a consent item, we don't have formal presentations.

OK. Thank you for the clarification. And thank you for- Oh, sorry.

For 1212 Escalero, that is a public hearing. It's the next item on the agenda.

You have a- Which is also a consent.

No. No.

That one is unmentioned.

1212 Escalero is the only non-consent item. Oh, you're right. You're right.

Sorry. Apologies. We will take your comment when that item comes.

Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we're all clear on this.

You're clear. I am rusty. So then the rest of the cards I have are for item three. Sorry about that, folks. Any other consent calendar comments? So items one and two. Looks like that's it. So I'll close public comment for consent calendar items and bring it back to the commission for any clarification questions. We are not to deliberate on the consent calendar.

I have a clarification question. I recall in the past, and I know this is a difference and I apologize, but I don't think that I've been here for a SB 684 application before, but on SB 9 there was no deliberation on the consent at all. We just received and filed a notice. Is that correct? And could you guys explain to me and perhaps the audience the difference between an SB 9 split and a 684 split?

Good evening, Commissioners, Deputy Director Christensen. SB 9 was adopted a few years prior to SB 684. SB 9 allows lot splits in single-family zones where you can subdivide an existing single-family lot into two lots and build up to two units on each of those lots. SB 684 is a much newer law that was also recently amended to expand its applicability. It applies in multi-family residential zones like this parcel, which is zoned R2. Similar to SB9, it allows you to subdivide a lot. However, SB684 allows you to subdivide the lot into up to 10 smaller lots. But it also has the same provisions where we have to review and approve the application ministerially. And it also imposes a much shorter shot clock for us. So the city has 60 calendar days from the date a complete application is submitted to the city to render a decision. Understood. Thank you for the clarification.

Any other? Yep. Commissioner Davis.

So, and I don't know if this is possible, but I'd like clarification on the two points that were raised by public comment and the public comments that were left at our desks about the eligibility based on the five-year residency and also I didn't see anything about a heritage tree in the packet.

Sorry, I think we're having trouble hearing each other because of the storm. So let's perhaps wait to see. Were you able to hear the question?

I heard the first part. I think the first part you asked was clarification on the requirements for the tenancy. Is that correct? Yes. I missed the last part.

The last part was the tree. It's both of the things that were addressed by public comment.

Didn't see one either.

Doesn't mean it's not there.

I can address the tenancy issue. At this point, the applicant has provided us enough written evidence to support the required findings that the person who was occupying the unit was not a tenant. It was a personal relationship. The person was not paying rent. There was no written lease. So until and unless it is provided written evidence to the contrary, that was not tenancy per the requirements.

So just to see if I understand, and again, trying to clarify for the people that asked. So it's about tenancy, not just residency.

Yes, exactly.

And I'll answer the question regarding the heritage tree. Yeah. So on the tentative map, it does show, it does identify three trees. It was reviewed by our city arborist. None of them were identified as of yet as a heritage tree. Number one, that requirement doesn't, was not the criteria in order to deny or approve an SB 684 application. However, We did put as a condition of approval that if any trees are to be removed, they have to comply with our tree permit ordinance. And if required, get a tree permit or removal permit.

Any other clarification questions? And just because it's not every meeting that we have consent items, at Planning Commission, just in case anyone is wondering. Can we also go over our purview as a commission for these ministerial items?

Yeah, so we're not allowed to have any public hearing or public discussion on these ministerial approvals. And because they're in coastal zone or something, that's why they're even before you, because they require coastal development permit. Otherwise, these projects would not have been even coming in front of the commission. So that's why they are on consent calendar, because under the state law, we cannot do public hearing on these items.

Okay. Yes, thank you. If there's no other questions, I believe, can we take a motion for both items together, if we wish? Yep. Yes. Yeah.

I don't have any other questions, but there was a correction that I think is important. Is that OK? So on packet page 59. in the COAs, let me get there, it talks, so there was an error earlier where they talked about Terranova Boulevard and having to correct the address to Paloma. I think it's this item. Yep. But then in the COAs, in number 16, they refer to minimizing the amount of construction debris tracked out onto Terranova Boulevard, when I think it should probably be Paloma.

Yeah?

And this one's minor, but the geotechnical report stated that it's on the north side of the street, and I'm pretty sure it's on the south side of the street.

Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Any questions from staff on those?

No questions. We'll certainly have the condition of approval updated to reflect the correction.

Thank you.

All right, so we could take a motion either for the entire consent calendar or individually if preferred.

I think you should have to take it together.

Oh, we do have to take them? Okay. Sorry. So we'll take a motion together.

I make a motion for approval of consent calendar as presented.

I guess is it filing and receiving and filing or approval receiving and filing? Receiving and filing. All right. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Please vote.

That motion was made by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Godwin, and that motion passed unanimously.

All right. Thank you. Okay, on to, this is listed under consideration items in the, is that correct? Okay, so agenda item number three, file number 2024-010, site development permit PSD867-2. 24 to substantially demolish an existing 1600 1670 square foot single-family dwelling and attached garage and construct an approximately 2600 square foot addition and and an approximately 470-square-foot two-car garage for a single-family dwelling with a total square footage of approximately 4,150 square feet at 1212 Escalero Avenue. Assessor parcel number 023-082-160. Recommended CEQA action is Class III categorical exemption CEQA guidelines section 15303, and that's class three is new construction or conversion of small structures. Recommended action is approve as conditioned. Can we have a staff report, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners. My name is Michael Christensen, Deputy Director of Community Development. This evening, providing a presentation for this project is Assistant Planner DeLavalade.

Yeah, good evening Commissioners. My name is Gabrielle DeLavalade, Assistant Planner, and tonight I will be presenting a proposed project at 1212 Escalero Avenue for your consideration. So the lot is within the R1 single-family residential zoning district and the low density residential general plan land use designation. The project site is an approximately 6,180 square foot lot and it is currently developed with the one-story residence and attached single-car garage. The applicant is requesting approval of a site development permit to substantially demolish the existing dwelling and construct an approximately 2,600 square foot addition. The total square footage of the home would be 4,153 square feet. A site development permit is required prior to building permit issuance for additions to single family homes in the R1 zoning district exceeding the maximum floor area threshold provided in the Pacifica Municipal Code. This specific residence exceeds this threshold by about 940 square feet. The scope of work includes the substantial demolition of the existing home, the remodeling of the first floor, and the addition of a second floor. And additionally, the existing single-car garage would be substantially demolished to allow for the construction of a conforming two-car garage. Further, the proposed remodel and addition includes a small expansion of the footprint from about 1,700 square feet to 1,800 square feet and would include the correction of existing non-conforming garage and side setbacks. So in addition to the typical findings for a site development permit, the design of the home complements the existing neighborhood while also providing architectural interest and variation. The proposed landscaping would exceed the 20% requirement in the R1 zoning district and provide enhancement and visual appeal in the front yard. And the project will meet all required zoning standards, correct non-conforming setbacks, and provide an extra covered parking space. So staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission moves to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the site development permit by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions approval in Exhibit A. And that will conclude staff's presentation for tonight. If you have any questions, staff's available.

Thank you. Before we move to the applicant's presentation, if they have one, are there any questions? from the commission for staff? No? All right. Is the applicant here today? If the applicant has a presentation, yes, please.

Good evening, commissioners. Appreciate your time. The applicants are actually my three daughters. They're the ones that own the residence. And I think on the first slide, I'm sorry, on this first slide, They're showing the existing residence. It's pretty much uninhabitable. It had been in disrepair for many years. Basically, it's classified as a teardown. It had been a former drug house. And the proposal that the staff has shown you, like I said, we're looking to improve what's there. The main reason for doing this on the next slide is my family. I've been a resident here for over 30 years. I remember St. Peter's Church on the back. I've raised three daughters here, participated in everything. I'm a builder here in Pacifica. I built the house up on Ohlone, up on 21 at the top of the hill. I am familiar with the processes here and everything, appreciate everything which you've been able to add to the project. And having raised the three girls here in the city, we realized that on their own they're not going to be able to go and buy a house. So my wife and I assisted them in purchasing this with the idea that we could build basically a home that the three girls could live in. One of the girls is married. She's got her three children and her husband. They grew up in Novato. We're looking to put the family together. And one of the aspects of this was also to, on the bottom level, have a bedroom there, ADA approved for, say, my wife and I as we got older. So instead of putting us out the pasture, maybe the kids could take care of us. This is one of the reasons why the house is as big as it is. So potentially there would be nine people living in this house. We've been working on this since 2021 to try to do this. Along with the city's help and everything, we now are at that point where everything, you know, we're conformed to everything. We've got everything that, you know, we believe that... puts us in a position to have a multi-generational family here in the city and get the housing that we need on this particular lot. We are a longtime family. We've been trying to comply with everything. And right now, we are this close. Like I said, we've been at this for five years. The kids are getting older. And eventually, like you said, I hope we can do this for the family. something my wife wanted and in the middle of this process we lost her. She got cancer and passed away so right now I said this would be her goal and one of her wishes to keep the family together so With your cooperation and with us getting the approvals, the permits, we're going to be able to keep going with that. So I currently have my foreman, Chris, who's part of the process, and Diane. She's part of the process here also. So what has helped me bring this together for the family.

I'll turn it over to you. Yeah. Hello, my name is Christopher McGuire. I was the lead on the project up at 21 Ohlone. I've got a couple of decades of construction experience and we needed all of that during COVID. So I went through a whole bunch of stuff with the city of Pacifica just to get that thing drugged through and appreciated being able to work with Pacifica. They worked with us well, and it was a challenge during that time, I think, for everyone. So Gabrielle's been very responsive and appreciate the, you know, the turnaround time now. So it's been a positive experience recently. You know, we run a tight ship, veteran-owned company. I'm kind of a subcompany, and I'm veteran-owned. So we try to run a tight ship, take neighbors into consideration, and do things the right way. And I also live in Pacifica, and I've been here for about 10 years. So I also try to employ local people as well. So that's what I have to say. Thank you.

Hey, can I have you guys switch to the next slide? I'm Diane Dittmar, and I've been working on the applicant team here. And I just want to mention a couple things that have stood out to me on this. One is that this project, as staff pointed out, meets all the criteria to be approved. It meets the design guidelines. And I've been so impressed with how Dan and his team has worked so hard over such a long period of time to come up with a project that will really enhance Pacifica that is so far and above what is there today. The other thing that stands out to me is that this family is so supportive of each other and this is the way that they want to support each other and in turn support their community. and by living together and helping the grandkids to grow up and to support Dan as he ages and would have supported Glenna as she aged but she passed away. That's been very impressive to me. And I just want to urge you guys to support this because it seems like something that benefits the whole Pacifica community. This is the kind of thing that, from what I understand about Pacifica, You guys want strong community. You want families to stay here. You want people to be involved. And I think that this facilitates that. And this is the family. So I just wanted you guys to see that slide.

Does that conclude the... Thank you. And on behalf of the entire commission, we are sorry for your loss. It's so sad when something so passion-filled and ultimately exciting gets missed by lost loved ones. So apologies and sorry for your loss. We feel for you. All right, so I'll close the... Is it a public comment? If you fill out a yellow card and yeah, perfect. And then once we get to public comment, we'll call on you. Okay, so closing the applicant's presentation and bringing it back to the commission. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant or questions for staff? If none, then we can move on to public comment.

I just had two questions, but I'd do them after public comment.

After public comment? Okay. Same here. Same?

I can hold mine too.

Okay. All right. Then we'll open public comment for item number three. And we'll start with Nancy again. Sorry for the confusion earlier. And next will be Mark.

Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for taking the time to hear this. My name is Nancy Corrigan. I've known the Kelly family for over 12 years and have worked with them through thick and thin and would very much like to help endorse this family and for you to approve this project. largely because in addition to the family commitment Dan and his wife Glenna have with their kids, is an incredibly deep community commitment Dan and his family have had. Coaching youth sports, being involved with the development, and it would also allow not only just Dan's immediate family, but the whole community to develop with this. As I said, I've known Dan for a long time. He does own a construction company. And I used to work in commercial real estate, and what also stands out to me is the incredible integrity and quality of what he does and the way he runs his projects. So I don't think there would be any concern at all about anything less than top-notch quality product being built on this location. So I want to thank you for your time and consideration, and I would like to endorse them and strongly encourage you to approve this project.

Thank you. Mark, you're up next. And then next will be, is it Sir Shirley? S-R? Sister. Oh, I'm sorry. Sister Shirley.

Hi, my name is Mark Zalesnok. I'm used to my name being butchered, so no problems there. Sorry. It's okay. I've been involved here in Pacifica, seen changes since 1996 as a tenant, as a hang glider pilot, a paraglider pilot. I surf out at Lindemar. I currently own a residence in Pedro Point. And I've seen the changes that have occurred over 30 years in a community like this. And I think this home, I've looked at the design, I've seen what Mr. Kelly has built up on the hill. I think it's up by Fassler. It's high quality construction. And I think this city could benefit from more of this. So I'm a full supporter of it. It's a beautiful home. It's well designed. The elements are very hard on homes here, and you see it. I see it in my neighbor's home. I see it in my own home. And so, you know, to have this kind of construction occur here, I think, is a real blessing. And I just want to say I support it, and anything you guys can do to support really high-quality construction like this, we should be doing. So I very much appreciate it, and hopefully this will pass. I endorse it 100%.

Thank you.

Sister Shirley, apologies again. And after Sister Shirley will be Nina Tara Hayden. Tara Hayden, sorry.

Yes, good evening and thank you for giving me this time. I'm Sister Shirley and I'm here to support Dan and his project. I've known Dan for many years. I first met him when he brought his daughter to our school and he and Glenna became actively involved in our school and to this day Dan is still actively involved, although his daughter now works at the school and is doing a tremendous job. I think for Dan and Glenna, their be all and end all was their family. I see this project as helping that, encouraging that, and maintaining that family closeness that is so real to them. I saw it every day whenever they interacted with us and their three girls. It's wonderful to see. I first heard of this project a couple of years ago when Dan shared it with me and I was so happy for him that he would take something like this on and maintain that close family relationship that he has. So I would encourage you to accept this project and move it forward for him so his family can continue in memory of their mother to live together and enjoy life. Thank you.

Thank you. Nina Terhaden.

Good evening. I have to read from my paper so that I don't get emotional. So I'm Nina Terhaden, and I've been a resident of Pacifica for 23 years. Sorry. Prior to the Kelly family purchasing the home at 1212 Escalero Avenue, that home stood vacant for many years. When we moved in next door, that home was referred to as the crack house. PPD had been called to that house many times over the years for one bad thing or another, and then it stood empty until the owner prior to the Kellys moved in. She did her best with that house, but it was still not in great condition. And she wanted to move, and the Kellys were looking for something close to family. Glenna Kelly was diagnosed with breast cancer and started the fight of her life. Her middle daughter, Diana, was living across the bay as renting a home in Pacifica has been quite expensive. Diana's children were the light of Glenna's eyes. The one thing she could count on to forget her current situation, embrace these beautiful grandbabies. The house on 1212 Escalero was in no condition to have a young family living in it. So Diana and family waited patiently for this project to get underway. Once the home was finished, the plan was to have Glenna living there while continuing her battle so she would not have to deal with stairs. But Glenna passed away not ever seeing this project make any progress. She didn't get to see her family as much as was planned because of distance. Glenna's been gone for almost four years now, and the road to get this project started has been horrific. Diana has needed support from her family, her dad, her sisters, her loving cousins next door. She has had to deal with landlord issues, space issues as her family has grown. All the while, the city of Pacifica has wasted everyone's time and money delaying this project. All the while, Diana is paying rent unnecessarily while paying mortgage and property taxes and everything else that has been required of her. She needs her family close by. We need her close by. I urge the Planning Commission to approve the project tonight and bring our family back together in Pacifica. Thank you.

Thank you. John Segler. And if there's more cards, do you mind bringing them up or passing them up? Oh, there's no more cards.

OK. The speaker cards we have are the applicants who already spoke. Oh, got it.

Hi, I feel like I'm going up against the whole congregation here. But my wife and I are neighbors across the street from 1212. And we have always been really lucky, felt really lucky to live in the neighborhood with all of our neighbors are really close and friendly. We've all gotten along really well. We look out for one another. So this project's gonna affect everyone's daily life for a solid year of demolition, construction, traffic, possible street closure. Our view of the hills is gonna be partially blocked, as well as a lot of natural light. The neighbors are going to have a big house towering over their house. It's going to affect their privacy. It's going to affect their views. It just seems like a really massive house for a 6,000 square foot lot. You know, I'm really sorry about your wife and your, you know, if your family's all really planning on moving in there, I understand why you need all the space, but there's not another house in the whole neighborhood that's anywhere near that size, half that size. The two biggest houses on the block are half that size, and they're up against the hill with second stories that don't affect anyone's view or anything, so... The house has been vacant for five years. We've never even met the owner. We didn't even know about this project until we got the notice in the mail. None of the neighbors knew that this was happening. We've never even met the owner before. So I hope that it can be scaled back a little bit somehow and at least to save all our neighbors a little privacy and their home values even. You've got a house towering over yours, looking in your backyard, it's gonna affect your home value also. So I just wanted to bring up those points. All my neighbors asked me if I could speak for them. They couldn't be here. So sorry to be the bringer of bad news to the project, but just wanted to give you my opinion and our neighborhood's opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no more speaker cards. And not seeing anyone jump up, I will close. Oh, if you have a card, can you bring it to staff, please? Thank you. And go ahead and state your name for the record.

Hi, Valerie. I'm Valerie. That was my husband speaking. He's also a lawyer. We've been here for 57 years.

Could you state your name in the microphone? Valerie Siler.

My husband just spoke. We live across the street. We've lived there at that location for 26 years and then 57 total in Pacifica. And I can appreciate people not being able to live here. We have two daughters that rent still in the community. So unfortunately, it's tough, especially when we have family that can't live here. So I can understand that side of it. But as my husband stated, we also appreciate the beauty of Pacifica. The view from our front window looks out at the hills. With this house, we won't see that anymore. We'll see the top of the house. My husband is a contractor. He's been doing this for a long time. Sorry, I get upset too about this. So I just wanted to add to that the fact that we can appreciate having family and feeling bad about your family not having home, but putting 11 or 12 people in that house. I started to wonder, where are you going to park? Yeah, I get there's a two-car garage, but that also will affect our, you know, that will affect us as well for parking consideration, you know, along with everything else. So I just wanted to add that.

That's it. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? I'll close public comment for this agenda item and bring it back to the Commission for questions or deliberation.

Yep.

Thank you, Chair. I just had a couple of questions for staff. In the report it shows the non-conforming side setback and also the garage as non-conforming. The reason for that from what I'm seeing is six inches on the side setback shows 4.6 on the plan with five as required or allowed which seems a minimal issue at all. Also, the garage shows 20.8 feet proposed with 20 allowed. So I'm assuming that those are the only two non-conforming issues with the project from what I'm determining.

Yeah, those were the existing non-conforming. Those are existing? Yeah, just to clarify, that was for the existing single family home. The proposed project would not have any non-conforming setbacks because it would meet all the required

The backs of the garage and the side so the new all the new construction would be within Conforming rules.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you Any other questions or yep Commissioner Godwin Yeah, I've got one This seems like a really massive house to me and really inconsistent with the neighborhood that was largely houses when they were built many years ago, about 1,100 square feet. Some of them have been expanded to double that or thereabouts. Was there any discussion done between staff and the applicant about building a more modest project that would meet their needs or a more modest project in an ADU or some other configuration that would make it fit into the neighborhood a bit better?

Deputy Director Christensen, Thank you for the question. Staff in reviewing the application reviewed against the findings for approval of a site development permit. And based on the information provided and the analysis in the report, found that it does meet the findings for it. Notably, you know, in comparing the project to a principally permitted project, one that would not require a site development permit, it's about 900 square feet larger than a principally permitted amount. So on this... There's a complicated formula that's a little bit hard to describe. But in the code, the maximum principally permitted size of a single family residence is somewhat of a ratio to the size of the lot. And in this particular instance, the maximum, I believe, was around 3,500. And they're proposing around 4,400. And so in reviewing the site development permit, we're really looking. at that delta, you know, what is requiring this particular approval before the Planning Commission and based upon that and the design of the project, found that it meets the requirements, which is why we brought the recommendation for approval.

A question for staff, a follow-up to that. You know, often when these things come before the commission, they're in their fifth or sixth or tenth iteration, and the community has more insight than we do, and the planning department has more insight than we do. It's not possible to review every application in process for us, and not part of our purview anyways. But I'm hoping you could give us just a touch of background. Hard to understand when we're doing ministerial approvals for savvier developers, kind of ad hoc. How it is that a single family residence application in any form can take five plus years. And if you could just help me to understand what the process is that requires a back and forth. When there are state laws on the books that require a 10 day ministerial approval or 60 day ministerial approval, These two things existing at the same time, it kind of defies my engineering brain. So if you could just give me some detail on what maybe protracted this thing for this amount of time to arrive at a motion for a recommendation for approval.

Certainly. So to your point, it is a little jarring sometimes when we see projects of very different scales that have very different types of processing and can go very quickly or very slowly. With many changes in state laws, there are a lot more projects that under state law are ministerial, such as the ones that you just reviewed under the consent calendar. But even, you know, you can have very large projects that are approved ministerially in different contexts. And it's all about what state laws you can qualify, what laws the state has passed to try to expedite the development of new homes. In this case, there are certainly some options that could have been evaluated. SB 9 is applicable in single-family zones, and so that is an option that could have kind of short-circuited the process.

I believe they've amended 684 to now be applicable in single-family zones as well. As of July.

684, they amended to apply it in single-family zones if the lot is vacant or the, I believe it only applies if the lot's vacant. Which is what would. Yeah, anyways. Yeah. Yeah, we certainly could have evaluated this site if the request was packaged in that way. To be honest, I don't know the full history of the site, why it took five years, but our process for these developments is making sure that the application is complete and code compliant and making sure that we have conducted all of the review required under CEQA. I'm not sure if we have additional kind of details to provide on why it took so long, but we're certainly working to have our process be more standard and what's the word? Yes, streamlined, just clear to people when they're getting into it what our expectations are.

I'm not meaning to put you on the spot. It's hard for the public to understand. It comes across like we are paving the way for for-profit developers and getting in the way of local residents that are modifying their single-family homes. I've been through that myself. It is an administrative burden, but it seems like if what I wanted to do was build something big and extravagant on an empty lot, I would have no issue with that, right? It reads wrong to our residents. I'm just asking for the commentary. I appreciate your candor.

I have one follow-up to Commissioner Ferguson's question. We're considering this under the zoning rules that were in effect five years ago when the application was first submitted, correct? Or are we doing it under a different set of rules?

The application was filed in 2024 and this is I think it was it was our one zoning district back in 2024 as it is today. So I don't think that the zoning regulations like would have changed.

So you're considering the application filed or when it was filed was 2024 so That is correct. From your point of view, it's a process that's less than two years long as opposed to one that's five years long? From the city's point of view, I'm not saying there wasn't design effort gone prior to this.

Yeah.

submission of the documents?

The applicant may have spoken with staff prior to 2024. I'm not sure what those conversations looked like, but as of 2024, with the official submission of the application, that's what we have in secondary. The next couple of submissions, that's what we've been reviewing for your consideration today. So, as to the conversations prior to the official submittal in 2024, I'm not sure if that clarifies your question.

That's what I needed. I wanted to know what rule set to follow.

Thank you, Vice Chair. So basically, this was deemed, the application was deemed complete, and that's why we're here after this time. Various submissions, revisions, etc., etc., to comply with whatever staff had dictated to have a complete application. Would that be an accurate statement?

Yeah, correct. So it was submitted, the application was submitted in 2024. It was deemed complete in 2025.

Okay, and that's why you're in back to zoning. I think this has never changed zoning as far as I'm aware. That's still an R1. It's always been an R1. Yeah, that's correct. Thank you.

If no other questions or deliberation, we could take a motion.

Go for it. Could I?

Yep. Commissioner Davis. I did have one thing. There was the one comment letter that was submitted by one of the neighbors that has a new baby was concerned about construction dust, et cetera, et cetera. Things that I believe would be covered by the COAs and the BMPs. But could somebody just kind of confirm that out loud for that person?

Yeah. Thank you for your question. Their public comment was concerned with construction and demolition, which would be like a temporary event. We do have conditions of approval to ensure that... Let me find them. So existing roadways would be maintained clear of all time during construction of the construction materials and equipment and storage and debris. Construction hours are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the weekdays which is enforceable and then concerning air quality any like dust that may come up as a result of demolition The applicant is required to, and this is also a condition of approval, they're required to prepare a dust control plan conformed to the city standards in compliance with the Bay Area Air District's requirements for dust mitigation during demolition. And so that is a condition of approval, both those things.

Thank you. I was hoping for some reassurances for that person. She also was concerned about hazardous materials, but I think that's covered in BMPs, is it not?

Sorry, your question was if hazardous materials are being used or was the public comment?

No, she was concerned or he, I'm sorry, but The concern was about hazardous materials, but I thought I saw something in BMPs about that. That was the only thing that the planner didn't cover.

Yeah, all the hazardous materials, if they're used, they're covered by state law, their requirements in permitting, governing that they can't even be transported on highway without the proper paperwork, so that would be covered by the state law requirements. Thank you.

If I may ask one more question. I believe it was Chris, the project manager. Do you have an anticipated timeline for the project? Just as obviously it's not, you know, it's going to be three months from now.

But just for public knowledge, just an anticipated timeline from A to Z. Yeah, A to Z, typically, depending on site conditions and weather and all the things that we don't have control over, is somewhere between 12 and 18 months. That's a typical project from completion. On this one, there's not a lot of site development that has to happen. So the lot's already there. There's no grading. None of that has to do. So it's a very quick and... fairly simple small structure to, you know, relatively small structure to demolish that's actually in terrible disrepair right now. So it's a very quick process and then that's about right. 12 to 18 months. 12 to 18 months. Thank you. Appreciate that.

And actually, Chris, if you don't mind, a follow-up question. Also related to Commissioner Davis's questions, do you have planned work hours? I know the city has set work hours. Do you plan on, what is it, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.? Yeah, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 7 to 7. Do you have, like, typical work hours that your firm...

If only I could get the guys to show up to work on time every day. No, that's a very common thing throughout the Bay Area, and we're very cognizant of those things. Typically, our work hours are from 7.30 to 3.30 to 4, depending on particular day conditions on any given time. So we typically run about an 8 to 9 hour schedule from 7.30 to 3.30 to 4. Sure.

And also just for the public commenter who has a new baby, as someone who also has a new baby, do you have any notification process? If, let's say, I understand that some construction for a new structure is noisy, do you typically do any courtesy notification processes for neighbors?

Oftentimes, I try to build good rapport with the neighbors who are there because it sure makes the building process much easier. So we don't try to come in and take over, although there is going to be some, that's a natural part of development. So the people who have homes, at one point in time, their home was built and probably caused slight disturbance to someone else. It's the process of development. But, no, we try to be very respectful about those things because I, too, am a neighbor. I, too, am a father. I am all of those things as well. So they go into consideration. Yes, absolutely. So if we have, like, power outages or something that comes into play, we will absolutely typically give as much notification as we can within what we get. So PG&E might give us a, you know, if they had to do a transformer upgrade, they might give us a 48-hour notice, and then we would let the neighbors, anybody affected, know.

Yeah. Yeah. And I know this isn't typically a condition of approval or anything, but I think especially for this project and how close the neighbors are, I think taking the construction process with care and trying to be really respectful and notifying neighbors, as I'm sure you always do, this one especially.

Well, I also build a lot in San Francisco, so for me, this one's really not that close.

I bet, I bet.

I do deal with many zero lot lines, so, yes.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Vice Chair, if I may make a motion?

Absolutely.

I would like to move that the Planning Commission finds, excuse me, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, approves site development permit PSD867-24, by adopting the attached resolution including conditions of approval in attachment A and incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference. Second.

Please vote.

That motion was made by Commissioner Redfield and second by Commissioner Ferguson and that motion passed unanimously.

Thank you. Before we move on to commission communications, thank you, everyone. I'm going to read our... appeal statement. Anyone aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission has 10 calendar days to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council. If any of the above actions are challenged in court, issues which may be raised are limited to those raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. Judicial review and of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation. In certain cases, 30 days following the date of final decision. All right, on to commission communications. I'll let anyone else start before me. If not, then I'll go ahead. I'm happy to be back. I gave birth to a little boy. His name's Callan. He's two months old now and over 13 pounds. So I know, I know. So I'm getting my workout. But I'm really happy to be back. And thank you, everyone, for allowing me time to be with my baby.

I just want to say we're really happy to have you back. Congratulations. I'm so glad that it all worked out and he sounds like he's really special.

He's chubby. I like it.

I second that.

Thank you.

Let me add my congratulations as well.

Thanks. All right. On to staff communications.

Good evening again, Commissioners. Michael Christensen, Deputy Director of Community Development. I have a couple announcements. First of all, there are three vacancies on the Planning Commission, two full term and one partial term. Applications are due on February 20th and are available on the city's website. There is also one partial term vacancy on the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee that we're looking to fill. You can find info on all vacancies and the application materials on the city's website. Additionally, The community development department launched an update to this active planning applications tracker. It is very different than the applications tracker that existed previously. The new tracker maintains all information that we add to it and is also updated in real time as we make updates on our site. So we're hoping to improve access to information for the public and applicants.

Sorry, a clarification on your communications, and I didn't get a chance to jump in. My term officially expires in March, although I have reapplied to extend at the pleasure of the council. Did you say there are two full terms and one partial term? open on the Planning Commission?

My notes from Director Updegrave noted three vacancies, two full term and one partial term.

Could we maybe ask for some, I can't hear you. Hey folks in the back, if you don't mind quieting down a little bit. Thank you and congratulations to you all with the new units. Happy to see new units in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry.

If I may, Vice Chair. So Commissioner Devine has resigned. So that is the partial. So personal reasons, but we're going to miss her for sure. So that's the partial.

And if I may, the one partial term for Planning Commission is set to expire in March of 2027. And then the two full four-year terms are set to expire in March of 2030.

Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

So who are the two? It's Commissioner Ferguson and Commissioner Godwin that are the vacancies, but you guys can reapply?

I have done.

We can.

Okay.

Jim, are you going to reapply? I already have. Good. Got something encouraging.

We get emails... Notifying us when our terms are going to be up just in case we happen to not have it on our tracker I knew it was coming, but I had May and not March in my head. So okay Someone just tell me when my terms about to expire so I can reapply quietly My heart dropped is it me?

I think it's on this I got I got a lot of emails and calls because I had 20

Can I ask a couple quick questions about tonight's completely administrative clarification?

No? Formatting? I guess, well, right now we're in staff communications, but I think I could bring it back to commission communications, if that's OK.

I'm finished with staff communications. You're finished?

Yeah. OK, go ahead. And it's nothing that really bears on anything substantive that we've done here. So in the staff report, there were things, there were two different places, like one place that said, oh, it's all outside of the setbacks and then all within the setbacks talking about the project. So which is it? And then parenthetically on the table, so it says existing, you know, requirement existing proposed. But in the footnote, it said E for existing. and N, which I'm assuming means news, and other places it's P, so can we use either P or N, but keep it consistent? Just for clarification.

Certainly. We'll take a look at... at that and, you know, we're working on some new templates so we can be more consistent with the terminology we use.

It just helps as we're reviewing and I think it also helps when you have a document of record. I think consistency is really important. It was one of the reasons why I brought up Terra Nova because that's what most of this is, right? Documents of record. So I'm not trying to be nitpicky. Promise.

I guess I I know I've asked this question before but I'm gonna ask it again because I forget what section it's relevant to in our code so ministerial items like what was on the agenda tonight that are ministerially approved usually a lot of other cities they don't have to come through Planning Commission but I From what I've been told in the past, because these projects require coastal development permits, our code has language that says CDPs must be reviewed and approved, I guess, by planning commission. But these projects come to us and our hands are tied. We can't even deliberate on them. So what code is that as a reminder? And then what do we need to do to organize our code so it's not confusing like this? I think it's kind of confusing to the public when there's a project that comes to a public hearing, there's a false sense of public opportunity to make a change when we can't make any changes.

Thank you for the question, Michael Christensen, Deputy Director again. My understanding is this is actually a little bit of weirdness in state law, that many of the state laws that streamline review of certain projects either don't apply or apply slightly differently within the coastal zone. Even certain state laws like SB 330 have carve outs. within the coastal zone where, you know, the intent is to retain the authority of the California Coastal Commission over the coastline and to not kind of harm that. And so my understanding is, you know, we have seen guidance from other cities and from the California Coastal Commission on how to process these. It has told us that we do need to have a public hearing even though we are not able to actually Act with discretion.

Yeah, and just to add on it, Caitlin Snodgrass, associate planner, within our municipal code, we have some provisions of where the planning administrator is allowed to approve of these coastal development permits through a process called administrative coastal development permit. So this is typical for ADUs that are proposed within the appeals jurisdiction of the coastal zone. If it's outside of the appeals jurisdiction or if it's outside of the coastal zone in general, that would be a ministerial process that would only require a building permit. But since the Coastal Act prevails, we're required to process that administrative CDP. It requires a higher level of technical review, such as geotech review, since these are more sensitive areas of our city, such as near Bluffs. And within those provisions, we typically... We originally outlined that SB 9 urban lot splits could be approved by the Planning Administrator in the same way that ACDPs for ADUs are processed. However, within our code it says land divisions cannot be approved by the Planning Administrator. So with that, because our code explicitly states that, the Coastal Commission gave us direction that urban lot splits, so under SB 9 or This new application that we saw tonight for SB 684, while those are ministerial projects, because our planning administrator is not able to review land divisions, it has to be approved by the Planning Commission.

But the land division then is not deliberated?

But we're not even, I guess to rephrase, we're not even approving, we're receiving filing.

Yeah. To expand on that a little bit, other jurisdictions that have certified ordinances for SB 9, like urban lot splits, all of the jurisdictions that have certified ordinances outline that the coastal development permit has to be heard by the planning commission and approved by the planning commission, but without a public hearing to be consistent with state law.

How does one do that?

Yeah, because all of our meetings are public hearings.

We do have an active project to draft an SB9 implementing ordinance, and that is certainly an element that we can evaluate as part of that.

This is something I was thinking about also. I know that we approve these administratively, but if there is an appeal, could it be appealed to the Coastal Commission because of the coastal zone?

That is correct. So if a project is located within the appeals jurisdiction of the coastal zone, it not only has an appeal period from the local level, so following the city's typical appeal period for any project, and that's also the same for administrative ADUs, or not ADUs, CDPs. And then if it's located within the appeals jurisdiction of the coastal zone, it also has an additional appeal period with the coastal commission, and that's published on their cities, or on the Coastal Commission's website. And that's open for a period of, I believe, 14 days.

So the latter would be the case, even if it didn't have to come to Planning Commission, right? These consent items on our agenda.

Unfortunately, a lot of these state laws are new. The code was written before. So we would have to do a comprehensive code procedural updates to address some of these issues.

I don't assume, we had this discussion, but I don't assume there's any appetite for changing the local laws. I remember as we left it, it wasn't worth going through the effort as they changed so quickly. We would just have to keep rewriting and they proceed anyways.

But for this one, I mean, every two, three months, maybe two months, we have some consent items that... manpower goes into both on staff side to get onto the agenda. It takes time for us to review and deliberate. The applicant needs to make a, well, just be here and ready to answer questions potentially.

If you'll notice, it's typically the same applicant.

Well, it's just, I don't know. I feel like it would be beneficial, at least for this language on CDPs that we can't do anything about. to not have to come to Planning Commission?

I will say that the way we have been processing on the consent calendar is consistent with other jurisdictions along the coast. Just off the top of my head, the city of Capitola also processes their urban lot split and SB 9 applications the same way that we've been handling ours. Again, it's certified by the Coastal Commission the way that we had originally outlined it within our interim rules, like guidance. I can't remember the full name. But for SB 9, we outlined it in a similar process with the ACDPs and were told by the Coastal Commission that we were not able to process as an ACDP, but it had to come to the Planning Commission without a public hearing.

So would it be safe to say that on ministerial approvals that come before us, it's really about reviewing and getting it basically reviewed and on the record? Reviewed and filed, right?

Yeah, it has to meet a set or it has to meet specific objective criteria in order for it to qualify for these state laws in order for us to process it. I believe the additional layer of the CDP is just to confirm that it's consistent with our local coastal land use plan. One of the policies in our new 2040 LCLUP state that within our coastal vulnerability zones, we cannot approve land divisions. So for example, we had a project come through and it was located within a coastal vulnerability zone and they wanted to implement SB9 to split the lot. And because of our local coastal land use plan, it was not consistent with the policies they're in and they were not eligible for SB9 or for that urban lot split.

So I do, I have no, I finally found it.

So what, maybe you could help us understand, it's in regards to, it's on page 10, it's in regards to the 125 Shell Street project. And it says, an administrative CDP approval for an ADU or JADU is not subject to planning commission review or invalidation pursuant to blah, blah, blah. Approvals of other administrative CDPs can be invalidated if three commissioners so determine in which case an application for a regular CDP would be required pursuant to blah, blah, blah. However, an administrative CDP approval for three Therefore, this report is informationally, this is a horrible sentence, but I think it's therefore this report is informational only in nature. So that's really why we're hearing it. Informational review to make sure it's consistent with the qualifications for what you've done the work to determine for us.

Yeah. Correct. To build on that a little bit, that ACDP for that ADU, That is not or the Planning Commission is not the approval body the approval body is the planning administrator and through that whole process we There's there's a lengthy notification process that goes into that we collect public comment We have a 10-day public comment period before the zoning administrator essentially reviews the project they review the staff reports and in the same manner that you were to review a typical CDP. We compare it with the required policies and then the additional supplemental findings that are outlined within our administrative CDP code in our municipal code. And then they have a local appeal period that follows the directors decision and all of those steps are notified to the surrounding property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the site. The purpose of us putting that item on your consent calendar is just to notify that this process had occurred. It's more for the record than as opposed to SB 9 or SB 684. Because your decision tonight is not to approve the project essentially, it's just for us to report that the planning administrator had approved of a project. And because that doesn't require a public hearing, this is the time that we would basically notify the public again. I think that would be the fourth time it's publicly noticed in that process that the ADU was basically approved.

I actually appreciate that they're on the consent calendar. It's the only way that they actually get to most of the community. But is there any time where an SB9 or SB684 split is something that could be deliberated under the LCLUP in the coastal zone? I assume not outside of that?

SP 684, I'll have to do more research under SP 9, no, because they have explicit requirement that language that the public hearing portion of the coastal development permit process has been removed under SP 9 under explicit language. I'll have to do a little more research for SP 684. Got it.

And SP 330 is the same, right? There's...

SP 330 doesn't have the public hearing requirement. It just imposes by public hearing by the local agency.

Sorry, I have other allocations in my life besides keeping up on every state law that comes down the pipeline.

Well, we get new state laws every year. We get confused as well.

And then I just want to touch back on Commissioner Davis's question about the ACDPs and the planning Commission's ability to pull those off of the consent calendar. Typically for an ACDP that can be, we don't typically process those unless it's for an ADU, but ACDPs can be processed and approved by the planning administrator. If they're more minor developments, so a single family dwelling or like an accessory structure that wouldn't qualify for an exemption, we typically just bring those to public hearing because they're typically wrapped in a few other entitlements or a few other permits. However, if we were to bring a single family home as a consent item approved by the planning administrator, you would be able to take that off of consent calendar if you chose to, and then put that on the public hearing agenda. However, that's not allowed for an ADU because they have to be approved ministerially.

So hypothetically, and I guess I want to appreciate that we don't get too deep into this discussion since it's just staff and commission communications. But I really think it's important for us to understand. So maybe this could be an actual agenda item to discuss at some point. But hypothetically, the agenda item number two tonight, could the commission have pulled that from consent and then had more of a purview on it? No.

Only because that project had to be processed ministerially. So say we were just to bring a single family dwelling approved by the zoning administrator. They were not invoking any state laws to streamline the process. essentially they weren't invoking anything to streamline the process or make it ministerial, and it was just, you know, a very minor single family dwelling that didn't qualify for an exemption, you would be able to pull that off of the consent calendar and deliberate on that.

Okay.

But if they were invoking a state law that required the project to be ministerially, yeah, then we wouldn't be able to open up a public hearing for that item.

So would it be safe to summarize this by saying if it's a ministerial approval that is being invoked by state law that our role is really just transparency and review.

Review to the various criteria, if it meets the criteria.

Yes, that's part of the review. Clear as mud. It is.

I'm sure I'll bring it up. bring it up every couple of meetings. So can we, I know we're super busy, you all are really busy, but if there is ever a meeting where we don't have a lot on the agenda, it'd be nice to officially discuss this.

Yeah.

Is anybody all right if I make a motion to adjourn?

Yes.

I move we adjourn.

I'll second. All right, adjourned. Thank you.

Did you get the notification? I'm not seeing the notification.