Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

No, we're going to wait one more second.

Where's Commissioner Fishner's name tag? We could just move them down. Does that work?

There's an empty here, so we'll just title them now. Dealer's choice.

You need to sit in front of your name tag and you need to vote from the button that pairs to your voting.

Thank you.

July 20th, 2026, meeting of the City of Pacifica Planning Commission. This meeting is called to order. May I please have roll call?

Roll call. Chair Hauser?

Present.

Vice Chair Berman?

Here.

Commissioner Redfield? Present. Commissioner Davis?

Here.

Commissioner Ferguson? Here. Commissioner Fisher? Here. Commissioner Sanchez is absent.

Okay. Commissioner Fisher, can you please lead us in the salute to the flag?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Fisher. All right. Before we get into administrative business, any member of the public wishing to make comments on any items should complete a speaker card and bring it to the front and hand it to staff. On the card, please indicate the agenda item number on which you wish to speak or oral communications for items not on the agenda. Members of the public may also participate in the meeting via Zoom or by dial-in option shown on the screen. Once dialed in, enter the conference number on the screen and press the pound key. If you'd like to speak during a particular item, press star five to raise your hand if dialing by phone or the raised hand function in Zoom. 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. If comments do not fall into one of these categories, the city will provide you with a second warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic. If the warning is not followed, the chair, I, will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone. And throughout this warning system, I will seek the assistance of the assistant city attorney in identifying comments not related to the agenda item or not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. All right. So I don't have any speaker cards for the administrative business. Do we have anybody dialed in with a hand raised or on Zoom with a hand raised for administrative business? All right. Then we'll move on to approving the agenda. Does someone have a motion to approve the agenda?

I make a motion to approve the agenda as is.

Do you have a second? Yep, second. All right, let's please vote.

All right.

And that will take us to approval of minutes. I usually don't have a lot of comments on the minutes, but I had a few tonight. So if you'll bear with me or if somebody else has comments, I will happily defer.

I have comments, but not on April 20th, because I was absent in that meeting, but on the subsequent two.

OK. So then we'll go order by order, or meeting minutes by meeting minutes. On packet page 5, the second to last paragraph, it says, And they did a really good job in reviewing, if we can say, and council did a really good job instead of they, just to clarify that it wasn't us commending us. And then, Vice Chair, do you want to go to... Oh, I had one more question, actually, and I don't know if anyone from Public Works is here. Commissioner Davis asked if a note could be transferred to Public Works to make sure that they were aware of the issue here with, I'm just looking at this, with the retaining wall with the project on page eight. And I just wanted to see if that note had been transferred to Public Works. I don't know if you got... The loop closed on that, Commissioner Davis.

Yeah, there have been some nudges from the residents. I'm not sure where it stands right now, but that would be great to get an update on that.

Okay. So that's not an amendment to the minutes, but if staff could maybe take that back. That's on packet page 8. That would be wonderful just to follow up. And I'll turn it over to the Vice Chair for comments on... The next minutes.

So for the May 4th minutes, I'll reference packet pages, if that's okay.

Please, thank you.

So packet page 16, third paragraph. It says Council Member Berman, but it should say Commissioner or Vice Chair. This is on packet page 16? 16. Okay. Then... Let me find my next one. Sorry, just a minute.

Are you past packet page 22?

Yes. Okay. On packet page 22, it says Commissioner Davis stated, and then it has an ellipsis. I don't know what she stated, but maybe we just remove the statement.

Where is it? Packet page 22. Yeah. Yeah. I searched my name, too.

Yeah. The next one's on 28. Packet page 28. The sentence that starts with Vice Chair Berman, it's about two-thirds down the page. So it says, Vice Chair Berman stated that is going to buy it when there's five years left. I think it's supposed to be they are. Vice Chair Berman stated they are going to buy it when there's five years left. Looking for my next one. No more comments on May 4th's minutes. I have a couple on June 1st. Do you also? My first one's on packet page 49. Okay, go for it. At the beginning of the minutes, it says Vice Chair Berman asked of there. I think it should say if. So of should be if.

53.

I'm past that. Okay. So on packet page 53 in the third paragraph, which is the longest one, It says that people participate in BOLD and SCIP. SCIP is spelled S-K-I-P like the verb, but it stands for State Capital Infrastructure Program. So if we could just change that to S-C-I-P.

Page 64. On packet page 64, second to last paragraph, the word item is spelled incorrectly?

I also have one on this page. I was reading these and I did not know why we kept talking about CFOs. And I could not for the life of me figure out what this was. And then I realized several pages into this that I think this is supposed to be C of O, like a certificate of occupancy. So if we could just universally change any reference to chief financial officers. That would be super helpful.

Page 66. Go for it. Page 66, about halfway down the page, it says Vice Chair Berman stated you can say roughly because I think it's supposed to say Vice Chair Berman stated you don't need to say roughly in quotes because the word proportional being in there already has to be interpreted by staff. 73, that's it.

Okay, and then unfortunately I missed Two, one on packet page 11, last paragraph, it said, Chair Hauser stated she would not want to get credit, but there's no context and I don't know what that's about. So I would just strike that sentence. And then on packet page 13, it says, Chair Hauser appreciated the kind words and never felt awkward. Just delete that. I don't know what that means. I often feel awkward, but I would not like it in the minutes. just a general comment and I feel like I've heard Commissioner Ferguson say this but like having 80 pages of minutes and having like for like this is not the right way to do this someone should synthesize what happened in a way that's consumable and accurate because this like reading this took almost as long as reviewing the plans so that's that's my feedback for the night um any other comments before we have a motion

I move that we approve the minutes from April 20th, May 4th, and June 1st with the amendments that the commissioners listed.

Second.

Okay, please vote.

It passes unanimously.

Okay. And then I see... Go ahead.

How are the minutes being developed?

Yeah, that's a great question. It looks like they're being recorded and then... Yeah, I don't know.

Yeah, it's a little bit complicated right now. The city currently has a transcriptionist that listens to the recording of the meeting and kind of transcribes that manually and then our Planning staff watch the video and take that and correct it and fill in the blanks. So it is a very manual process. The city, as part of the current budget, did elect to shift to action minutes. Great. And so that will be implemented when the city implements our new meeting management software in the coming months.

I think that's great. And I think that will alleviate, like, especially staffs.

time but also when we go back and read these it's very hard to find what actually happened so I think everyone will be very happy with that okay can you just give like two seconds on what that software is what is that new software you're implementing Granicus okay

So we don't have any designations of liaison, but I did want to ask, I feel like the BMR ordinance has been kind of kicking around, and I don't know if there's a thought on when that will go to council.

I can't recall right off the top of my head, but I can look it up.

Okay. I just want to make sure that we, if we don't do it formally in this meeting, we can't kind of post facto do it by email, so I want to make sure that we provide somebody that can attend. I'm going to pick on Commissioner Redfield, but since you go to all the council meetings, would you like to until just in case it comes up before we have a chance to meet again?

Sure.

Okay. And then if the date shifts, we can reconsider if we have time.

The tentative date is August 24th.

Is August 24th. Okay. does anyone want to do it? I can attend with you, Commissioner Redfield.

I'm sorry, say again?

Do you want to liaise together?

That would be great.

Okay. Okay, so both Commissioner Redfield and I will plan to attend on the 24th unless that date changes. Okay. Okay. Oral communications, I have no speaker cards. If we have folks with raised hands or who are dialed in who would like to speak, but just as a reminder, oral communications are for items not on the agenda and members of the public will be allotted three minutes for any item. Okay, then I will move on from oral communications. We don't have any consent items tonight. So we'll move into public hearings. SP 185-24, Ohlone Point, Law 7. May we have a staff report, please?

Good evening, commissioners. We're joined this evening by Crystal Rizzi, who is one of our contract planners and who carried this item forward.

Good evening.

Just want to confirm that the presentation is up on your end. I can't see it on my side, so I just want to make sure you can see that.

Not quite yet, but give us one second.

Okay, of course.

Thank you.

Okay, you are good to go. Wonderful, thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Crystal, and I'm a consulting planner working with the City of Pacifica. I'll be providing staff's presentation for the specific plan application before you this evening, which is for development of lot seven within the Ohlone Point subdivision. Next slide, please. So in this presentation, I'll first clarify the Planning Commission's role, followed by a brief background of the Ohlone Point subdivision. Then I'll provide a detailed description of the proposed project, followed by an analysis of the project's conformance with applicable standards, as well as environmental review requirements. And finally, I'll conclude with a recommended action. Next slide. So the Planning Commission's role tonight involves analyzing the proposed specific plan, which is a required discretionary entitlement since the project includes development within the planned development and hillside preservation district zones. This discretionary review involves making the specific plan findings, including whether the project is consistent with the approved development plan, which also includes the law-specific conditions of approval and the city's design guidelines. In addition, it's the Commission's role to determine whether the project falls within the scope of the previously certified subdivision environmental impact report. Next slide, please. So to provide some context, the Ohlone Point subdivision, which was formerly known as Harmony at One, includes a mix of residential lots, private open space, a conservation area, and an affordable housing parcel. I'd like to note that in 2013, an in lieu fee agreement between the developer and the city actually removed the affordable housing restriction on lot 12 as they paid the in lieu fee. So the approvals for the project included both planning commission and city council approvals. So the planning commission certified the environmental impact report and also approved the tentative subdivision map, a site development permit, and a use permit. And then subsequently the city council also certified the environmental impact report and approved the rezoning and the development plan. Next slide, please. So the project site is, as I mentioned, lot seven of the Ohlone Point subdivision. So on the map on this slide, lot seven is outlined in black and then the red outline is the overall subdivision boundary. Lot 7 is a 1.3-acre parcel that's currently undeveloped and covered in native grasses. There's 13 trees on site, and the lot has an average slope of 26.5%. The site is currently designated in the general plan as open space residential, and as I mentioned previously, it's zoned planned development and is within the Hillside Preservation District. Surrounding uses include the subdivision conservation area immediately to the south, subdivision open spaces Open space areas are located north across Ohlone Drive, and then there's a mix of both developed and undeveloped residential lots to the north, east, and west. Next slide, please. As shown here and as detailed in the written staff report, the site plan proposes to maintain approximately 71% of the lot in its natural state, while approximately 29% of the site would be disturbed. And this disturbed area accounts for the proposed residents grading and landscape areas. In response to a question raised by a few of you prior to the hearing this evening, I did just want to clarify that while the staff report in this presentation note the total disturbed area is approximately 1600 square feet, it appears that the actual disturbed area might actually be less. And we can discuss this later, but just wanted to note that there is an option to, in order to clean up the record, you may wish to consider adding a condition of approval to the resolution that would require the applicant to reconcile these discrepancies prior to issuance of a building permit. And then we could stipulate, you know, that the final disturbed area wouldn't be able to exceed that approximately 1,600 square feet that was analyzed in the staff report. So the site plan at the ground level is within the approved building envelope. And you'll notice that there is a minor 40, approximately 40 square foot encroachment on the second level of the residence. However, this doesn't actually change the ground disturbance at that ground level. And then the floor plan is approximately 4,300 gross square feet. So this accounts for an approximately 1,300 square foot lower level, which is comprised of a two car garage, living areas and outdoor spaces. And then the upper level is approximately 2,900 square feet and contains the primary entrance to the residence, living areas, and additional outdoor spaces. Next slide, please. The architectural style is a modern two-story design that has a flat roof and reaches a maximum height of 29 feet. Materials include stone, wood trim, stucco, dark brown siding, natural stone veneer accents, and white moldings. and the design also incorporates floor-to-ceiling glass windows, which are primarily seen on the western facade. The plan proposes approximately 6,100 square feet of landscaping and storm management areas, and the palette focuses primarily on drop-tolerant California native species. Approximately 90% of the overall landscape is low or no water use, with the no water use plantings being about 40%, so essentially those would not need to be permanently irrigated once they've been established. As I stated previously, there are 13 trees on site. And then in addition, there are two off-site trees that are proximate to the proposed development. And so these areas or these trees are proposed to be protected with six-foot chain link exclusion fencing during construction. And then in addition to retaining the trees on site, the landscape plan also proposes to add 34 new trees to the site. and then stormwater would be managed through a bioretention planter, self-treating green roofs, and then a dry well as well. Next slide, please. The project involves approximately 2,200 cubic yards of excavation to accommodate the proposed improvements and 95 cubic yards of fill, so this would result in a net export of off-hauled soil of approximately 2,100 cubic yards. And then regarding utilities, the residents would connect to the existing infrastructure that's in Ohlone Drive, and then trenching would be required for new storm drain, sanitary sewer, and water laterals, which would be installed within the right-of-way. Slide. So as detailed in the written staff report, the municipal code establishes that regulations in the planned development district are guided by those regulations of the zoning district that are most similar in nature and function. So for this subdivision, the B5 district is considered to be the most similar as it also has a minimum one acre lot size. In addition to the B5 standards, the site is also subject to the site coverage regulations of the Hillside Preservation District, and then also the regulations of the subdivision. And specifically on this slide, that's related to height and landscaping. Focusing on landscaping for a second, the subdivision does not actually establish a minimum percentage of landscaping, but rather it envisions the areas immediately around the structure and other improvements, such as the driveway, would be landscaped while all the portions outside of these areas would be maintained in natural landscapes. And then in addition to the clarifications I provided earlier on the disturbed areas based on some of those questions we received, I'd also just like to highlight that the project does comply with the regulatory requirements that govern site coverage. So specifically, the maximum coverage limits of the Hillside Preservation District which are calculated to reflect the building footprint, paved driveway, and grading areas, but excluding exterior hardscape areas that fall within the definition of recreational facilities. So the permitted coverage in the Hillside Preservation District is approximately 20%, whereas the project is proposing approximately 18%. And then lastly, as shown in this slide, the project conforms to the other lot coverage standards related to impervious surfaces and structures, and then is within the maximum 29 foot height established by the subdivision conditions of approval. Next slide, please. The project is also consistent with the development plan and design guidelines. And just highlighting a couple of those here specifically, the project is within the 4,300 square foot maximum size, as well as the height limit, as I just mentioned. The design utilizes a stepped approach that follows the natural site topography in order to minimize as much as feasible the need for grading. The modern four-sided design utilizes earth-toned wood, stone, glass, and the garage and utilities are burned or screened to to help minimize some of the visual impact. The project also integrates sustainable features such as the living roof, passive solar design, and then the on-site stormwater retention areas. And then, as I mentioned earlier, the landscape plan heavily utilizes the lower no-water use native species. And lastly, it's developed within the approved footprint, which helps to preserve adjacent privacy, views, and solar access, as well as maintain those existing trees on-site. Next slide. So regarding the environmental review, the project is within the scope of the previously certified Harmony at One subdivision environmental impact report, which, as I mentioned previously, was certified by both the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. There are no substantial changes or new impacts that would warrant any supplemental environmental review. And the project has been reviewed against the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that was adopted as part of the EIR certification. And where applicable, project conditions have been imposed to ensure that those mitigations do get properly implemented at the timing specified in that mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Next slide, please.

So based on the analysis provided, staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to find that the project is within the scope of the Harmony at One Roberts Road Subdivision EIR, certified by the Pacific City Council via Resolution 59-2007, approve the specific plan SP 18524 by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions of approval in Attachment A, Exhibit A, and incorporate all testimony into the record by reference. And that concludes my presentation. And I'm here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you for that detailed presentation. I appreciate that. Before I get into commissioner questions, is the applicant here? And does the applicant have a presentation? Fabulous. Do you have a presentation? OK, great. Thank you. So just as commissioners decide to ask questions, maybe preserve applicant questions for the applicant. Does anyone have anything for staff before we hear the presentation and go to public comment?

I had one quick clarification question on that 40-foot encroachment of the deck. Is that only encroaching on the setback? It's above grade, second floor, I believe. So, that's the only encroachment is just to the setback, my assumption. Just clarification.

Female Speaker Yeah, that's a good question. I should clarify the encroachment is not actually into the setback. It's into that approved building envelope that was envisioned in the environmental impact report. So, it's still, the project still complies with the setbacks. It's just encroaching into that building envelope that was previously assumed in that EIR.

Excellent. Thank you. One more question. As far as storm drainage, is any of that, there is quite a setup on the property itself. Is any of that drainage to the street, roofs, gutters, driveway, etc., impervious surfaces?

It wouldn't be to the street. It would go to the storm drain facilities, but I believe, and I would have to look this up, but I believe that there's some self-treating areas. So some of it will be retained on site and then some of it will be discharged to the storm drain system, but it wouldn't go directly into the, into the street.

Right. Excellent. Thank you.

If there are no other questions, I have one for Ms. Rizzi. Yeah. Okay. On slide three, you mentioned that this project is discretionary, but I was under the impression that because it's a housing project, we were limited to whether or not it meets objective standards. And I'm asking that more to Ms. Murphy.

Yes, thank you. Under the provisions which I think you're referring to in the Housing Accountability Act, those actually refer to a housing development project of two or more units. So actually as one unit, certain of those provisions do not apply. But regarding this, so it is discretionary review, but we are limited to compliance with the previous approvals and ensuring consistency with those.

And with the subdivision being for so many more units than two, that doesn't apply back?

It would have applied. If the subdivision were being approved today, but as the subdivision is already approved, those approvals have already been made.

Okay. That's an interesting distinction that I hadn't thought through. Thank you. Okay. All right. Seeing no more commissioner questions, I will bring it to the applicant. Welcome. You have 10 minutes for presentation. You could preserve up to three minutes for a rebuttal if needed, but welcome.

Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Crystal for the hard work that she did in that thorough presentation. And I'd also like to thank the Planning Commission here today to let me make this presentation on the Ohlone project. My name is Kevin Russell. I've been a Pacifica resident for 57 years. I've lived in Park Pacifica, Lindemar, and I now live in Vallemar. Beyond living Here I am a daily user of all of the incredible open space opportunities that Pacifica has to offer. I truly do love this town. I say that because I'm so proud to be part of a team that's able to present a project being built on one of the most special pieces of property in all of Pacifica. I understand the lasting legacy that this project will leave behind. From the beginning, we set out to design a house that would blend into the hillside and look like it truly belonged there. As Crystal outlined in the staff report, we carefully followed the conditions of approval. Not just because they were required, but because they made sense and they were the right thing to do. The project disturbs less than 30% of the 1.3 acre site and obviously preserves more than 70% as a natural state. We kept earthwork confined to the building envelope area where possible and avoided the steep southern slopes. We located the house exactly where the original environmental report envisioned it because it was the perfect balance, taking advantage of the views while stepping the house down the hillside and using berms to help shield it. This created better privacy for the residents and made the home less visible from below. The overall height stays under the maximum 29 feet allowed, and we intentionally kept the massing low broken up to reduce visual impact from the public viewpoints. The modern design uses materials that help it blend into the surroundings, stone veneer, natural wood siding, generous glazing that reflects the sky and vegetation from below. Everything you see will look like a natural part of the hillside. We are committed to using high quality, sustainable, low maintenance materials like concrete, stone, cedar, and aluminum. The concrete and stone construction make the house highly fire resistant, which is important in this hillside location. The house is being built to a standard that I have not seen anywhere in Pacifica. It will be a true gem even 100 years from today. It will be highly insulated, and thanks to our coastal cool climate, it won't need air conditioning. We'll use radiant heat with a high efficiency boiler that will work with the home's thermal mass to keep energy use very low. The project also includes areas of a green roof and landscape design that creates no new runoff. The landscape plan is almost entirely native through drought tolerant California species. Over 40% of the landscape area will require no permanent irrigation once established. We set out to design a special house that is deserving of this incredible location. We complied with the EIR in all the conditions of approval, again, not because we had to, but because it was the right decision. I respectfully request the Planning Commission approve this project as recommended by staff, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for that. With that, I think we'll probably move to public comment. there is any, and then we'll bring it back to the commission for any questions for you. Okay. So I don't have any speaker cards, and there is no one here except the applicant. So I'm going to go straight to Zoom.

There is a couple hands that are raised.

All right. Can you tell me how many?

There are two hands raised.

Okay.

Should I allow them to talk?

Sure, and by way of reminder, each member of the public will have three minutes for their public comment.

Okay. The first speaker is Summer Lee.

Good evening, Commissioners. A few years ago, the first home that was set as the precedent for the Harmony subdivision came before you. By the way, I can hope we all agree that Ohlone is a perverse name for this development. What the Commission was not told then was that in 2009, years of community work produced a compromise to steward this land as responsibly as possible, given the enormous amount of sensitive habitat that would be lost. Those concessions were memorialized and buried in a link in your packet tonight that homes were to be set back from the ridgeline, be LEED certified or equivalent, include berms around the home, and adhere to HPD limits on soil disturbance. Those conditions were not followed. The project was appealed and the appellants ultimately settled with the developer who agreed to pull the home back and comply with those requirements. And although he told us it was his dream forever home, a story we've all heard before, he sold it last week for $18 million. after investing about $5 million, less than three years later. So this house now sits above Pacifica, and it turns out those agreed-upon protections were never enforced. So one request I have is for you to add a condition of approval requiring this project to return to Planning Commission before final permitting so you can verify compliance with your own conditions. It says something when mom-and-pop builders in Pacifica are held district code compliance, but mega-millionaire developers can ignore our conditions with impunity. And please require the adherence to the project's COAs, including the protection of wildlife, especially birds. This design includes a ridiculous amount of glass directly in the Pacific Migratory Flyway. If this venture LLC stands to make $10 million or more from just a few years of work, it can afford to meet some of these conditions. People say that this is money Pacifica needs, but only a tiny fraction of property tax comes back to the state to us, and the actual costs of this development are externalized, like loss of ecology and infrastructure demands, which are all footed by the rest of us. So driving property values even higher, extracting enormous profit from our open spaces and ocean views that no developer ironically wants to protect, and then placing it behind private gates, this is not what Pacifica is about. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Slate. Next commenter, please. Next commenter is Dinah Verby.

Good evening, Dinah Verby. So... I've been involved with this property for, I guess, since the subdivision was first approved, which I think was like 20 years ago. And I was one of the community members who worked long and hard with the then owners to come up with conditions of approval that everybody agreed on, the developers and the community. And those were all memorialized in a series of something like 50 conditions of approval. that went along with the subdivision and that are required to be applied to every home that's built in the subdivision. One of those conditions, of course, was for inclusionary affordable housing. I was very distressed when a prior city council eliminated that condition in exchange for a paltry in lieu so-called housing fee, which was never used to build any housing. I was also one of the appellants when Lot 3 was built by Bijan Khosravi. We did, as Summer said, enter a settlement with him. But I was distressed that there was no follow-up on the conditions that were negotiated and agreed upon back then. And now... I just want to remind you all that all those original subdivision conditions are still applicable. One of them is that the building has to be built to lead gold standards. I don't see a word about that in the staff report or in the resolution. So I think you all need to step back a bit and look at this more closely and make sure that all of the original conditions are still being followed and I echo Summers request that this time around, would you please make sure the project comes back to you for a compliance review prior to issuance of the final building permit? I also think that there are some concerns about whether the HPD coverage limitations are being accurately computed and calculated here. I think there's more disturbed areas that are being included. I'd like you to look at that more closely. And I don't have enough time to get into all the details, but I'm very disappointed that we don't see any presentation of the actual plans and we're not allowed to see them, I guess, anymore. online. I only learned about this project last Thursday when the agenda came out, and there's only been one and a half business days where I might have gone in to be able to see the plans, but I have been out of town, so I haven't been able to see the plans. So we're trusting all of you and relying on all of you to make sure it's done properly this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Farby. Any other commenters? No more commenters. Okay. All right. I still have no speaker card. So with that, I will close public comment. Do you have a public comment, sir?

Yeah.

Please. And then I'll ask you to fill out a speaker card after your comment.

Hi, you guys. My name is Tate Cowan, and I started this project 25 years ago.

Sir, I'm so sorry. Are you the applicant?

No, no, but I originally went to Harmony at 1, and I just want to clarify on a couple of the comments. It's back in the old days. We'd all come here and discuss in front now at Zoom.

I so appreciate it. I'm going to put a pause. One second. We're not starting your time. I just want to ask our city attorney to make sure that we're following the rules.

Yeah. Yes, and I believe this isn't the technical applicant and the applicant. himself didn't take up the whole 10 minutes.

Okay, perfect.

I'm not the applicant.

No, no, no, of course. I just need to make sure we're following the protocol.

I just want to give a little history on some of the misguided stuff that was just said. So, because I've been here in every meeting all the way through, along with the hillside preservation meetings with Bijan's lot, with Dinah back in the day, she was in those meetings with us for original approval. I personally bought her dinner probably 30 times. But the hillside preservation, they came back on Bijon, and everything through this entire project has been calculated correctly. And I just want to make sure that it's, you know, honestly, it gives me PTSD on some of the stuff coming back and being this long and still fighting the same story over and over again. So I just want to clarify that with Bijan's lot, everything was calculated correctly. With lot seven, everything's calculated correctly. And we're just regurgitating the same stuff from 25 years ago. Please call or reach out to me at any time if you have any questions about the past. And let's move to the future. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Okay. And... I don't believe we have additional public comments. So with this, I will...

There are no hands raised on the public comment.

Fabulous. Thank you, Deputy Director. So with this, I will bring it back to the applicant. If you'd like to speak again, you are welcome. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I think we'll move to... We'll just close public comment at this point. and we'll bring it back to the Commission for questions of either staff or the applicant. I would also like to take a moment to re-ask some of the community's questions, but maybe we can... I see Commissioner Ferguson kind of... No?

Okay. I have a couple, but hoping that we could start with the area of disturbance. And I know a couple of commissioners asked the applicant and staff of clarification questions. Do you mind, for the benefit of all the commissioners, do you mind kind of summarizing the questions that were asked and then the responses? So for just total disturbed area, then impervious area I'm guessing is another one, and then the calculation and requirements for Hillside Preservation District.

I will ask our contract planner, Crystal, if you can respond to that question.

Certainly. Yeah, so to just summarize the question that was asked by a couple of the commissioners, they correctly noted that throughout the staff report, there's three different lot area numbers that are used. So one is the 16,313 square feet, which is on packet page 81. And then I also stated that in the presentation as well. And that's actually listed on, I believe it's sheet A101. of the plans. Let me confirm that for you so that if it helps to kind of track along with what we're looking at here. Yes, A103 of the plans. So that's one number. And then the other number is 12,362, which is on packet page 83. And that's actually the sum of the numbers that you'll see in figure two of your staff report. And then there's also the HPD coverage, which is the 10,180, which you'll find on packet page 85. And I also mentioned that in the presentation. So, um, first of all, I want to apologize for any confusion that the staff report, uh, caused. I think there was just a discrepancy in the plans and, um, the number that's listed in the, in the table that's tabulated, it appears that it's double counting the landscape and the grading areas because areas that are going to be graded are, you know, will be disturbed because they'll be graded and then they'll also be landscaped. And so there is some overlap between those areas. So using the numbers that are calculated when you add up those numbers from Figure 2, those come out to the 12362, which appears to actually be the accurate amount of total disturbance of the site. So that's the building, the hardscape areas, the landscape, the grading, all of that. And then the The 10,180 square feet, that is the areas that you see in figure two, less the recreational facilities. And that is because in the municipal code, it explicitly precludes recreational facilities from the HPD lot coverage allowances. And when you look at the definition in the definition section of the zoning ordinance, states that recreational facilities are facilities installed on site for the active and or passive enjoyment of persons residing on or visiting the site. And so that's how that coverage kind of is.

That's why it differs.

So one of them, the 16,313, I believe, is just an error. And again, I apologize for the running confusion there. And then the 12,000 and some change, that's what I believe is the actual disturbed area. And then the 10,180 is the disturbed area minus the recreational facilities consistent with what counts towards the HP coverage in the code.

Thank you. So you are referencing plan sheet A-103. The colored areas on the plan is that representative of the areas that were calculated? So, anything that's patched in the plan sums up the calculated areas?

That's correct, yeah. And I verified that by, so the plans are to scale, and so I measured the area by drawing around those disturbed areas that are shown. There's a little discrepancy because obviously it's a plan check software. It's not going to be exact, but what I came up with was 12,490. So it's right around kind of the same. And then similarly calculated the landscape plan area, and it comes out to around, I think it was 13,000. So the way that I think... not to say it's a benefit for it to be incorrect because obviously confusion is not good, but the 16,000 square feet number that was written in the staff report is actually an overestimation of the actual disturbed area of the site.

And I noticed there weren't any civil plans. Is there a civil engineer on the project?

Yeah, there are civil plans. Did the civil plans not get uploaded?

At least they're not C-sheets.

It's a completely separate document.

I don't know that we receive those, but the grading plan typically would be at least partially done by the civil engineer. I have reason to believe that there's a significant amount of disturbed area that is not hatched or colored, specifically everything downstream on the hillside from the new home to the property line as evidenced by there's going to be a new bioretention area there. Bioretentions typically need to be flat. So regrading is required. And then there's also underground stormwater retention that's being installed. So those areas will be disturbed as well. So I believe there is much more disturbed area than has been calculated, independent of the double calculation.

I think that feels like a question for the applicant's design team, and I don't know if they're here, but maybe we can give the applicant an opportunity to answer questions about disturbed area.

So, yeah, that was my main question, but I first wanted to make sure that I'm reading the plan correctly and I'm not missing a civil plan sheet that may have been included that calculates disturbed area otherwise. But so I effectively think that impacts the total disturbed area and then the hillside preservation district area.

Can we have the contract planner refer the sheet number she's talking about for the civil plans? Because if we're missing the civil sheets, I think there's no reason to continue this. It might be good.

Yeah, I don't see the civil sheets.

Yeah, I think Michael or Amalia, I think I might need some help with this one because I think we had created a link and the civil plans were in there. They're a separate file from the architectural plans.

AND I DO APOLOGIZE. I THINK THIS IS PART OF OUR ADJUSTMENT TO NOT BEING ABLE TO INCLUDE THE PLANS IN THE SET. I INCLUDED I SENT THEM SEPARATELY AND BECAUSE THE CIVIL PLANS ARE IN A SEPARATE FILE, I MAY HAVE NEGLECTED TO SEND THOSE.

IT'S KIND OF A BIG PROBLEM.

I think what would be helpful.

So first of all, I think it's very unusual that these plans are not included. And I don't want to move by rote to not including plans. I think that the way the law is stated, that the applicant for copyrighted material can get permission. We should ask applicants to get permission. And if they choose not to, they choose not to. But not having plans available to the public is, I mean, as a fellow developer, I would never do that. All of that being said, If we can open the civil plans right now together and see how many of them there are and kind of look at the scope, I think that it would be helpful to get a sense of what we're missing. I don't want to continue this public hearing for this reason alone. I'd like to go through everything. And if we really can't get there, then we can continue it. But let's have a thoughtful discussion.

I think the footprint of the stormwater details are on A2. Was that included in the planner's calculations for the disturbed area?

I guess my comment is more from a grading perspective, and you would have to disturb land beyond the footprint of the stormwater facilities.

Deputy Director, can we go to the front page that had the sheet index on it?

It's pretty slow.

So a grading plan... Four pieces of details, DMAs and erosion control. Maybe we can flip through one by one. Let's flip through one by one. Is this what you're looking for if I start?

Yeah. So already the limit of work, which I'm interpreting as the dark black dash line, is larger than what was shown in A103. That limit of work line does not include THE STORM WATER RETENTION AREA WHICH CERTAINLY WILL DISTURB THE LAND AND TYPICALLY FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, THERE'S CERTAIN TRENCHING AND WORKING AREA. SO EVEN BEYOND WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE CIVIL PLANS, LOGIC TELLS ME THAT THERE IS A LARGER AREA OF DISTURBANCE. BUT BETWEEN THE CIVIL PLAN C 2.0 AND A 1.03, THERE'S ALSO DISCREPANCY.

Vice Chair, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask the applicant if they would like to say anything. I think also know that we haven't seen these sheets since our first foray into them. So anything you could maybe help us with on understanding what we have not had a chance to reveal, that would be great.

Is the question the temporary disturbance of grading or is it... What is regulated, the temporary disturbance entirely or the permanent footprint?

Disturbed area is typically the disturbed area of grading, so literally tilling up land. That's typically how NDPES, the general permit for stormwater,

Regulations? We're not in an NPDES condition here. We're looking... Can you speak into the microphone? Are we evaluating the permanent footprint of the development or are we evaluating things like access to build some subgrade stormwater detention? So that's my question.

So in order to not have crosstalk, let's direct questions to staff.

Okay. So what is being evaluated in terms of the regulations regarding the the footprint of disturbance? Is it the temporary work areas or is it like any tilling, like any trenching, or is it the permanent footprint of the improvements?

So the HPD coverage allowance calculation would include even temporary disturbance. It's really looking at here's a natural hillside, how much of it is being altered by the project, either permanently or during the construction phase. Okay.

Thank you.

And if I recall, I know a requirement is a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and I'm guessing that has to do with the subdivision requirements since more than an acre of land is disturbed. So the general permit stormwater requirements do apply to this, at least according to the conditions of approval, even specifically for this project, a SWP is needed, correct? I saw it in the COAs.

Yes, that's my understanding from our engineering division.

Thank you.

Would the applicant like to address any questions on the disturbance area?

I think you are correct. The grading plan shows the disturbed area. And my eyes aren't as good as they should be. I know for a fact that the architect took the entire area that's shown on this grading plan into account when doing the disturbed area calculations. And you're correct that the downhill slope portion has to extend beyond because we have to berm and do all of that work there. So I feel confident that you're correct. There is a larger area than shows on the architectural, but also on that one plan. but also that the architect took those calculations into account on that 16,000 square foot. And that might be the source of that 12 versus 16 number. I can't speak specifically, but I know they took that into account.

Thank you. I would be interested in seeing an amended plan that matches the correct calculation.

And I know that the presenting planner had MENTIONED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT ASKED FOR THAT TO BE RECTIFIED, BUT SINCE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A MAXIMUM NUMBER, YOU'D PREFER THIS TO COME BACK?

YES.

OKAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT, BECAUSE I'M HEARING LIKE A LOT OF YESES ACROSS, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO JUST TAKE EVERYONE'S TEMPERATURE ON WHETHER WE THINK THAT WE NEED TO A, REVIEW CIVIL PLANS, B, MORE INFORMATION, AND THEN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK. IF THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY OF US ARE LOOKING FOR, THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN is we continue to ask all of the questions and provide the applicant with a full and easy list of things to do so that they're not doing this again.

That was my thoughts exactly. I'm comfortable. I have a bunch of questions, which I now think might be related to things that were included and we had a technical difficulty. And I'm so sorry for that. I'm not uncomfortable making a decision without the drawings. If we have them, we can pull them up here and do this in real time. there's a handful of things that I'm used to always seeing and we need to see that we didn't have. So I just came in with a bunch of like, how do I know this?

Well, and a disturbance in the discrepancy in the disturbed area, that's potentially thousands of square feet tends to fall into the, you know, it doesn't really matter if we have the materials, if it's not correct, it should potentially get clarified. I'm just going to commissioner Fisher. Do you have a opinion? on the, just the idea of continuance, not continuance.

I agree they should come back with addressing some of these comments before we vote on the approval.

Okay. Commissioner Davis, Commissioner, okay. So I think, I think we have consensus that we're probably going to need more information. And so we're going to go through the information we'd like clarified. We should go through our questions. We should go through the community's questions. And then I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to answer questions and get whatever clarifications you need. so that it's really clear what this commission is looking for. Vice Chair, I'm going to leave it with you since you probably have more questions. Okay.

And I don't have too many more. That was my primary question. Related to it, though, and I noticed that there's like 2,000 cubic yards of cut. I'm wondering, and maybe this was in the EIR, which I don't think we had attached to the staff report. Is there an opportunity to use the soil that is excavated on the site for berming, which I do remember was a part of conditions of approval for a previous home that was built here? So the question is, is there hazardous material to why we can't reuse soil that will be cut If there's no hazardous material, and assuming this will be continued, I'd be interested to see more natural birming used with what was cut. And that could help balance the site as well, because I know it is expensive to off-haul soils.

Anything else, Vice Chair?

My only other question, and this may be a discussion with the Commission is the conditions of approval. I know when we looked at another home that was permitted here and built that we did have a long discussion on berming and kind of hiding the home behind some natural-looking berms, but I don't believe that was built with the home that's out there. You could see it when you drive on Highway 1 past Siebel. It kind of just stands out. And I think that was one of the public's questions and concerns. So, yeah.

Vice Chair, were we on the commission together during that? Okay. I think the difference with that site, and I'm going to ask for your recollection, is that that was specifically on a mapped ridge line. And this seems to be, if I'm reading the grading plans correctly, at the lowest point on the site.

I don't know how that...

It's not the lowest point, but yeah.

It's a lower point, and it is further set back from the ridgeline.

The lowest point off the public road is, I think, where, right? Because I think the lowest point's here.

Well, the Ohlone Drive goes down more. For this lot? Oh, for this lot. Yeah, like over here is the lowest.

But then it would be more of a disturbed area.

Yeah, I think that's already going to be disturbed But so not really a question, more a topic that I'd like to hear and discuss with the other commissioners. And I think a few members of the public had the same question as well. OK.

I'm putting it on the list. Are there other questions or comments for the applicant or staff?

Do you mind if I jump in? Please. Go for it. Quick clarifying question. So the discussion, the one you just put on, that was about the ridgeline.

Yeah, about berms. I couldn't hear the whole discussion. I'm so sorry. I should have spoken into the microphone. I think the Vice Chair is hoping that we can, when we get to deliberation, can, although we're kind of combining questions and deliberation, but talk about potentially positioning berms to hide the home.

In the interest of efficiencies, I don't want to ask questions that have already been asked. Sure. Thank you. Commissioner Ferguson?

I'll start with some softballs. There's a couple references to Ohlone stone and Ohlone wood, and I've seen the renderings, but I couldn't find any record of what that is anywhere. First of all, let me start with This is a very beautiful project. I'm really impressed with the design work that went in. There's a ton of thought. I would love to someday be able to live in a place like this, although unlikely. It's really a spectacular home. But just a handful of clarification questions so we can get through this.

And I think these are going to be for the applicant, so if you wouldn't mind coming back up.

Okay.

I do have a comment on the berming specifically to this house being on the hillside. The house, you can't berm on the slope. So instead the house was notched into the hillside, which is what creates the amount of off-fall. If you tried to then, so the house is sunk into the hillside as much as practical to create the effect of a berm. But to add a berm on top of that, then on a steep slope, you can imagine then you'd be chasing that slope all the way off the property line. So again, the house is notched in to make the effect of a berm. That's the only thing you can do on the slope.

And that makes sense. Thank you. I know that the home that came across commission a couple years ago is already built and it is beautiful, but as a Community member mentioned there were supposed to be that it was supposed to be hidden more from highway one and you could see it like Halfway past like a half mile before you get to it.

So It's on a flat site. So it's a really different situation Okay, thank you

So why don't you ask your questions and then- Yeah, I'm going to keep just rolling through if that's all right. Would staff be able to take note of these questions and provide them to the applicant so that if they return, they maybe bring their design team or answers?

Fabulous. Before you jump in, do you have like a model of the, like a building model that you can share with the city where you can see the views and what the house looks like constructed?

I want to do this through the rules of the meeting. So why don't we go to Commissioner Ferguson and then we'll go to you. No, that's fine.

It was related to the question.

Absolutely. I think we just need to stick through the kind of Robert's rules of the meeting. Go ahead, Commissioner Ferguson.

All right. One thing that we would typically see with something of this scale is like construction routing, specifically as it pertains to traffic impacts. So quick rule of thumb, assuming that we've done the most efficient job possible and we're using all of the fill is coming from cut on property, which probably isn't, but let's make that assumption. You're looking at like 110 fully loaded truckloads of soil coming off the property. over some fairly short amount of time that's not including heavy equipment coming to and from Baker tanks first or whatever we need for SWPPP visit is an enormous amount of heavy vehicle traffic for a project in this city and usually we would see so correct me if there's a sheet that was just not share with us usually we would see a plan and I'm thinking specifically of left turns onto Fassler, which would be two of the main ways out of the Ohlone development. I would like to see, and I don't know if we'll get to this point today, as a condition of approval to route truck traffic left onto Roberts and then looping around right back onto Crespi and right back onto the highway and make it an actual condition of approval that we submit a traffic plan that restricts any construction traffic from making left turns onto Fassler, especially with big heavily loaded equipment and soil that's just, it's not a safe place because those are both pretty blind left turns. If that's included somewhere, please direct me or pop it up on the screen. If not, I'd love to see that or give it to the discretion of the department to require that as a condition of approval. This is a question for, I believe, the contract planner. A lot was made of recreational spaces as it pertains to the different surface calculations, but I didn't actually see anything that showed what the recreational spaces are, where they are, and what's not included. I saw every other thing highlighted and overlaid, and there's like three different areas where it says we've excluded recreational spaces, but I have no idea what these recreational spaces are. Is that the pool? I mean, it's just not It's not clear anywhere, so maybe I'm missing that from a civil sheet.

Yeah, I'm happy to clarify. That's actually, you can see it in the floor plans. It shows the terraces. Could you direct me to our sheet? Yeah, of course. Sorry, I'm just pulling it up really quick. It is floor plan L1 and L2, which are, sorry, those are sheets A, AP 1.10 and AP 1.20.

Okay, so not the landscaping plan.

One more time, AP 1.

Could you repeat that, please?

Yeah, AP 1.10 and 1.20.

I have a piggyback question. You've referred to the PMC and read that partial statement about recreational area not being counted, et cetera, et cetera. Can you give us a reference number on that, please?

Certainly. So the definition is in Title IX, Chapter 4, Article 2, and then section, sorry, scrolling, section 9-4.265. And then the associated HPD regulation is in Article 22.5, and then if you go down to Section 9-4.2257, so that's where it tells you that it excludes recreational area, or sorry, recreation facilities, and then the definition is how we tied those two together.

Okay, so help me out just a little bit more here. I've looked at both of these sheets, and I had looked at them already, and I have read a drawing or two in my life. Can you just point out to me one or two recreational areas?

Yeah, so the lower terrace, the outdoor shade terrace, the view terrace, those are all. Main deck, kitchen deck, entry terrace.

Got it, so hardscape flat porches that we're saying are the use of recreation because they're outdoor spaces?

Correct, yeah. And the definition of that is fairly broad, I would say.

I'm not so, we've only been doing this six years on here and I apologize if this is our first time working together, but I've never seen that standard applied to this type of space before. So if staff could help me with that, and it's That would be completely the opposite of my understanding of how that is calculated. But if you were to tell me a basketball court is recreational space, OK, pretty clear.

Does Pacifica planning staff want to take a stab at this answer as well? Is there anything that staff has to add?

I MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING THIS SPECIFIC DISCUSSION POINT TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVE HER LOOK INTO IT IN DETAIL IN ADVANCE.

COMMISSIONER FERGUSON, IS THE DISCREPANCY HERE, BECAUSE A TERRACE TO ME DOES SOUND LIKE OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL AREA. It doesn't seem, to your point, to be logical that it wouldn't count as a disturbance to the HPD. Here's where I'm coming from. Is that the?

Not exactly. There's a lot of references made to subtracting out recreational space. Got it. But no reference to what that recreational space is in the report. And so when I was going through trying to look at disturbed area, the math just jumped off the pages wrong. And when I calculated it, it's like, none of this is adding up. And so if we're going to say this is recreational space, It would be great if in the future we could say, hey, here is the square footage of recreational space. This is what we are calling recreational space. And where we have an overlay for all of these other pieces of the puzzle, we're missing one for that. And it looks to me, without it being clearly shown, as we've interpreted it as recreational space, which, like I said, is a new interpretation of that rule in the HPD for me. And I would love to see that spelled out because I feel like we also have to then agree with that interpretation just to have it highlighted so it's in front of us, right? Because here I am discovering this for the first time and try it. I was looking all through trying to figure this out. It's a lot of extra work on our end to come to make these findings that were required to find if it's not listed in any way. It's referenced in a bunch of ways, but it's not listed. I'm off my soapbox for that. I'll move forward. Another finding, and this is something that I would imagine is shown somewhere because it's been shown to us every time we've ever talked about it, roofline height. There is no drawing in our packet that I could clearly find any show, and I've seen this calculated a bunch of different ways, but I believe that how it's supposed to be is fairly clear. I would just love to see, or if I missed it, Something that shows the bottom to top roofline height because we are not one inch I'll take that one and look at it while we get to more questions and

There are definitely on those elevations like stairs and other things that could be better labeled. Sure. But you do have.

There is a finding, and this is something I'll leave up to the commission for discussion, but there is a finding that requires us to find, I believe, that grading was minimized. That's a hard question. thing to address because in one way, how do you put a 4,300 square foot house with a giant driveway onto a very steep hillside without a significant number of grading? Do you implicitly get the right to do a 4,000 square foot exactly up to the maximum size house on a 30% slope and then by rights also get all of the grading that comes with that, especially when the ask for us has been to ensure we've minimized grading. I don't know of a lot of other residents in the City of Pacifica that have 2,000 cubic yards of off-haul. I'll leave that one open and we can leave that for discussion, but that was my last point.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Ferguson. Moving to Commissioner Fischer. And just please speak in the microphone.

Just have a question. Just procedurally, this development has yet to obtain like a building permit, right? That's a different part that happens after this approval?

That's correct. So the project was approved through a development plan, which was kind of the high-level overall development. This is now a specific plan, which is looking specifically at the design of this specific site. but is not at a construction level detail to proceed to a building permit, and no building permit has been filed.

So what if it doesn't meet the conditions of a building permit? Then does it come back to us, or does it just go through that process independent of this?

So when a project reaches the building permit stage, department staff will verify that any conditions of approval that you have added to a project have been met. and also that the project complies with the California Building Code and other applicable regulations. In the event that a project was not able to comply with the condition of approval, they would need to come back to the commission and request an amendment to that approval in order to proceed with that permit.

Thank you. I don't have any other questions.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Redfields?

No, I just said I think it's, you know, the area of the recreation thing is quite, outdoor recreation is quite an interesting, highly, it seems highly ambiguous to include that in such an important aspect of the HPD rule, if you will, and the calculations for that. So if that's written, as I have not seen that in the code, But I will definitely reference that and see where that's at because it's a very – I don't feel comfortable with that, with the calculations.

I believe by that standard you could make your entire property a porch. Thank you. And so it wouldn't disturb any land, right? Yeah. Logically. It's –

I think I agree with what you guys are saying. I think the nuance here is the sensitivity of the area. If this was a parking lot that was being redeveloped, it would be different than it being an HPD lot.

But it is an HPD lot. Yeah, it wouldn't be an HDB.

Right, that's what I'm saying. No, that's exactly what I'm saying. I think the nuance here is if we were redeveloping a parking lot, no one would would wonder if a basketball court or a terrace was an open space. Here, no one's wondering if it's an open space, but it's hard to say that it's not disturbed because you have to disturb land.

And we have to make a finding.

I think we just need more. It's part of our code, and I think that instead of us trying to make subjective interpretations, this is clearly a question, and when staff comes back, we have more analysis of this item. Was there other items, Commissioner Redfield?

That's probably the main item. Again, coming back to what Vice Chair Berman had mentioned with the berms. It's actually in there. And to do the off-haul of, I think it was 2,126 cubic yards of off-haul, how much of that is calculated into a berm? That should be obviously just regraded, reused. Into the thing and I think they had a camera with the numbers where it was something like 100 cubic yards or whatever That is reused on the project, but that wasn't factored into the berm issue. So yeah, I think again to your point earlier with But different, you know different location, but this could require and more and I agree with the applicant representative that

it's kind of hard to berm on a slope site, but the area that's upstream of the home that is being landscaped and regraded, I mean, there is opportunity to throw some cut there and just balance the site better. I mainly bring it up because I was disappointed that the house that was built a couple years ago, what is so... Prevalent on the ruse of castle on the hill look and I don't see one berm. I just see the house So I mean that's kind of mainly why I bring it up here But it doesn't necessarily mean that berms are appropriate for this lot Yeah, it could be an opportunity to help balance the earthwork though, which could help minimize Cut and fill which I think is a part of the finding So that would increase their disturbance area way way up

If you put any new berms.

If you put them in areas that are not already being disturbed.

But if you put them. Everything being disturbed is a cut. Uphill. Uphill is a natural area. Trees and everything.

Yeah, like if you, there could be a landscape feature, if you look at the elevations, to berm like uphill areas. but then at that point you're not hiding the home from any visual that's other than the other homes there.

The hill provides the effect that you're looking for. It's cut into the hill, and you can't berm it down gradient as you explained. You wouldn't want to.

Effectively, berms may not be appropriate for this lot, but berming is a good solution to help balance the site. I just didn't know there was a drop to cut and fill. But we have to make a finding that cut and fill was minimized. Okay.

So I am going to move on. I was going to move on to me and skip you. No, I'm just kidding. I'm going to move on to Commissioner Davis. No, I'm totally joking. I'm going to move on to Commissioner Davis, and then we can kind of take another question. any additional questions, and then I have a bunch. And I do want to at some point get to re-asking community questions, although I've heard a lot of them being asked over the time.

Yes, and that's where I was going to. So I'm going to ask the first question of staff first. Is the condition of approval that was suggested by one of our community members feasible to have it returned to PC for approval? BEFORE FINAL? I'M ASKING HIM. I'M ASKING SO EVERYBODY GETS TO HEAR THE ANSWER. YES?

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, GENERALLY YES. THERE ARE SOME STATUTORY DEADLINES UNDER STATE LAW UNDER AB 1114 THAT REALLY APPLY TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS OF TWO OR MORE UNITS. For the future, you know, there may be instances where that type of a condition would be very difficult to meet given our statutory deadlines, but for this project, as a one-unit development, it is more feasible.

That's the good news. It consumed the maximum 4,300 feet, so there's no EDU. So, yeah, I wanted to ask that, and I would suggest that we might want to consider that because my understanding is that on lot three there were there may have even been some movement towards the ridge line and some agreements via an MOU and some other conditions of approval that were not satisfied and I don't think we want to let that continue to happen and I think it happened with the condos across the street too yeah so then for the applicant and this is just kind of my curiosity In the staff report, there was a reference, multiple references to the architectural review guidelines for Ohlone Point Subdivision. I don't even like saying the name. And so I looked at the footnote on page two, and I didn't see, I saw the EIR, and I found the conditions of approval from 2007 for I'm going to call it OPS. But I didn't see any architectural review guidelines, and I wondered about the availability of those. The other thing that was referred to was the architectural control committee. Is that still in existence? Again, this goes back to 2007. And these are just questions, as I explained earlier to Michael. It's curiosity, and for informational reference, it's not a challenge. I was just curious about that. It's been 20 years. Kate, it's been 20 years.

Can you come to the microphone and respond?

Commissioner Davis, are these comments or are these questions? These are questions.

Okay, let's give the applicant and staff an opportunity to respond to those.

There is a guideline for the HOA, I guess, or for the subdivision. And it is an available document that we used. So I don't know how you as a commission would get a copy of that, but it's got to be available. And there is also an architectural review committee as part of the HOA that we submitted the drawings to and had a letter of approval.

Said you could provide a copy? I don't know if it's within my purview to ask, but I'd love to see it. All right. And committee. The architectural review committee. Is there currently a committee?

Yes.

Awesome.

We submitted the package to them. I think within the package that I submitted, there's an approval letter from the architectural committee.

Okay. I don't recall seeing that in our packet, but that doesn't mean you didn't include it. Thank you. Somewhere along the line, I did. OK. Thank you. My other questions are more just general in nature. So my understanding is that we're presenting our questions, but we're thinking that we might need to continue this meeting.

I don't think we're thinking it. I think when I polled every person, we're continuing it. So you should assume that we're going to move forward with that and just give a full, complete list.

Okay, great. So, I would be interested, and only because of all the confusion around it, in actually seeing the calculation of the and or what was included in it. It could be a drawing of that HPD disturbed area. I think we've already talked about that, but I am just reiterating that, stressing that it was, you know, a discrepancy that we all noticed, and it sounds like the definitions are a little murky. And I would like to see how the number was arrived at, not what we did, we took this and this and this, but actually how it was arrived at. So I just wanted to reiterate that. And then while I was away for the moment, I thought, I actually want to do a site visit, but it's very difficult with the locked gate. And then I thought, maybe we could do a site visit. Great. Let me know how to get a hold of you, because I really do want to see this lot. And I do agree that WHEN I SAW THE PICTURE UP THERE, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOME. IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING MY DAD MIGHT HAVE DESIGNED. HE WAS AN ARCHITECT. BUT, YEAH, I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU UP ON THAT TAPE. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS. BIRDS.

I'M NOT BRINGING THAT UP YET. WE AREN'T EVEN THERE YET. OKAY, LET ME ASK. SO, TO ME, WE'RE TRYING TO DO CLARIFYING THINGS AND GATHER MORE INFORMATION. But since she encouraged me to do it, so I totally am a window person. I love lots of light in my house. I think that's a really cool part of the design. But with all the extensive glazing and the floor to ceiling windows, I was curious about what materials were going to be used for the glass. And I will tell you, I am a self-admitted bird nerd, but there's a reason. But some cities have actually implemented bird safe building, and there are some requirements around the materials you use for those windows. And in the EIR, it talks about mitigation for nesting time for songbirds and raptors. It also talks about protection of the loggerhead shrike and the white-tailed kite. So obviously there is acknowledgement that birds are a very important part of the environment, and strike kills are millions a year. So if something could be done to help avoid that, I think it would be appropriate. I'd appreciate it. I don't want to make light, but I'm sure the birds would too.

I think what if I'm if I may clarify, but I think what Commissioner Davis you're asking for is a condition of approval to be added that takes into consideration bird safe glass It just if it helps

City of San Francisco implemented a bird safe buildings ordinance in 2011 just as a point of reference for you. It might go into kind of some of the details of what's important.

I'm going to I'm going to ask you if you have any clarifying questions at the end, unless commissioners are asking for questions. So I'll give you an opportunity to come back if there are things that you need more information on. Okay. So I have several questions. And I'm going to ask this of staff, but is the applicant for this home the applicant for a single home, or is the applicant the same applicant that did the subdivision? And maybe Ms. Rizzi has the answer to that if Deputy Director Christensen does not.

Chris, Ms. Rizzi, do you have a sense of that? It's my understanding that the applicant is not the same as the original.

I think the same, but I couldn't answer with confidence. I can look around and see if I can find the original applicant for the subdivision. But yeah, I don't know right off the top of my head.

I am going to ask you then, as the applicant, to please come back to the dais so folks at home listening can hear the answer. But I think my questions, especially as pertaining to some of the larger conditions of approval for the whole subdivision, will depend on the answer to this. So have you been involved with the whole subdivision, or are you the applicant for just this one home?

Just this one home.

Okay.

Tate happens to be here, and he was the original founder.

Yeah.

We met through this process, but I'm separate on just this lot.

Sure. And I, again, this is unique in that I have questions, but I don't know if I'm allowed to ask them of a member of the public who's not technically the applicant. So I'm asking our city attorney, Murphy, for some clarification.

You could certainly ask. a member of the public if they'd like to answer any questions, and it's up to them.

Are you OK asking? OK, thank you, sir. Yes, please. So I wanted to re-ask some of the community questions. So as you're coming up, I will concur with Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Ferguson that I think this is a really beautiful home. I think you did a really good job on materials and articulation. I know that there's been discussion of berms. I also think the home has been properly sited, and I think it nestles very nicely. I think your site provided more of an opportunity than the site that Vice Chair Berman and I reviewed prior that is like a homing beacon as you're driving on highway one. Should have had the berms. Yeah. So I think there's a lot of positive stuff about this home. As this is a commission that was not here for the original subdivision, I would like to just get a little bit of a sense of the answers for some of the below market rate. So one community member asked about BMRs, and it sounds like there was a fee that was paid. That was done with a prior staff, right? There was a whole agreement that's... Can you speak to that?

And she was part of that. She was... VERY INVOLVED WITH THE TOWN OR CITY. I BELIEVE SHE MAY STILL BE. OBVIOUSLY SHE CALLED IN. EVERYBODY, BACK THEN, THERE WAS A GROUP OUTSIDE THESE WALLS THAT WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL. like I said, we had, uh, lots of after hours meetings and food and et cetera with this process. And we had two, we were supposed to build two low income homes down below, um, my personal lot. And they, at that time, you know, the city of Pacifica is very happy to, I believe we paid 375,000. and I don't know where they put the money or what they did, but at that time they were very excited about accepting that money. So we did everything that basically they told us to do.

Okay. So that's helpful information. As far as some of the more sensitive areas, and there have been some assertions throughout you know, this hearing tonight, that some of those areas had specific regulations or criteria that were supposed to be followed and potentially were not. Is that something that you're aware of?

So there's, in the very original meeting, I mean, this place was packed. There was, I mean, you couldn't, there was standing, there wasn't even standing room. You know, to go back to the birds, Bird Sanctuary, I donated 27 acres. So before there was a housing crisis and things in that, I'm born and raised three generations deep here. I've had multiple businesses in this town. And I love the beach and I love this town. And I chased a dream thinking I could raise my kids up there. I'll be in front of you guys hopefully in the next six months with my house, but my kids are, my daughter's 23 now. So that clearly didn't happen. And because of all of this stuff that goes along with trying to develop 70 acres on the coast in a town that is very anti-growth, you would think, I put 10 homes, 10 homes on 70 acres. It's incredible. I could have put 375. Look what they're doing with the bowling alley. I think that's 140. I mean, it's crazy. Talk about traffic. There are 2,000 tons of dirt. Once those go in, there's going to be some serious traffic. So I took a very sensitive piece of land and I put 10, 11 homes on there. And we connected Like the first home up there, Aaron's house, we connected. The Hussons originally owned that, bought that, and we forced them to come aboard our process. And even the lots A and B, I believe they're on the original plan, Zito's, he'll never build. But I consumed that 10-acre parcel as well to block everything out so there wasn't condos like on the other side of Fastler right up against what I did. was trying to create, which is basically there's 12 lots, 10 are buildable or 10 will be built on our land and then Aaron's. And I mean, you're not going to see that anywhere. I mean, we're not, I could have went for condos and 20 years later been approved because of the housing crisis. And then everybody had been complaining. There's 500 new vehicles driving up and down right now. We're just, we're searching for what we actually have 10, lot sold except this one, which are people wanting to raise families here.

I think it's helpful to have the context, especially because none of the people up here were around for the original. But I do want to get back to my original question, which is, are there sensitive areas that are supposed to be protected, right?

Yeah, the 27 acres of open space, we pay a company to monitor it, and that is on the plans. It's stationed Bird Sanctuary. And that whole ridge line is not touched, and it's donated, and it's monitored by the state, and we're in the system, and they come out every, you know, they come out and monitor it.

The state being CDFW?

It's... Do you remember the name? Um... Anyway, it's a conservation group out of, I think they're Golden State Trust. I don't know. I forget the name of it. But they monitor it, and we're in meetings. I'm on the HOA program. We're in meetings with them. We just had to deal with some minor things.

Okay. I'm familiar with them.

Yeah.

And I appreciate that answer.

Yeah.

I'm going to now ask the specific applicant for this lot several questions, if you don't mind coming back. Can you get your exercise? Sorry. So I think I'm just trying to let me ask the easier questions first. So does this project have a pool? I'm seeing one on the rendering. It's lovely. But I'm not seeing it on the plans.

Yeah, that was an early rendering that stayed on the front cover of the plans but is not part of the project.

OK. Do you happen to know the height of the retaining walls that are on your plans? Because while the building elevations are pretty clear, I don't see heights for retaining and it's very hard for me to approximate it looking at the plans.

I don't offhand. I bet the civil drawings show that.

Okay. So we'll take a look at the next.

But that can be something I can make sure is clear.

Okay. So it sounds like when you come back you'll have reconciled the disturbed area for this group. I think that's the most prevalent comment that you're hearing from us. Do you have questions on what is being looked for in that vein?

I don't think so. The architect has been watching and texted me and said that he's 100% confident that the disturbed area calculation that he's provided is on the tables here and is clearly delineated. But without the civil, I think the whole glitch here is that the civils just didn't get attached to the package. And once we reconcile that, I think we're going to find, I know that we're going to find that all of this is under the requirements. That whole recreational use argument, I think, is almost a non-issue because, again, the biggest number, which is the total disturbed area, is under the requirement.

Okay. I think in that pursuit, and I'm going to look at my fellow commissioners, it would be helpful to understand for any permanent... outdoor areas, which of them are pervious and which of them are impervious? I feel like that.

I think that was delineated in the plans. At least for me, I feel satisfied from a stormwater management treatment standpoint. My concern was primarily the total disturbed area as it relates to the Hillside Preservation District.

Will it make a difference for this commission if certain terraces are pervious versus impervious? Kind of asking the people that brought it up. No. No. Okay. Do you have other questions for the commission or clarifications that you need from us?

So this, the questions that I heard, I've been making notes. But will there be a published list? Something I can specifically respond to?

Staff is going to provide a published list. And I'm also asking our staff to specifically ask your design team if they can share the plans, which is allowed by the state law. So I think we need to proactively do that.

Can I ask a retaining wall follow-up? Please. I was curious to see it just because I've built a handful of bioretention basins, but I was looking through and I just wasn't sure with this. Do we have the civil sheet that shows like an elevation view of the bioretention basin? I'm just wondering if, like, does the retention basin have a retaining wall on the backside? It's like a 30-plus degree slope.

Probably.

If I were to design this retaining wall or bioretention area, it would have at least a tall curb. I don't think it would necessarily have to have a retaining wall. You could. But usually the cross-section of a bioretention facility is like three feet deep of the cross section, if that makes sense. So the wall is keyed in with a footing. And then above the surface area, it's like, it depends on the ponding, but six inches to one foot above this flat bioretention surface area. But the aspect that you're talking about, it is on a hillside, so it does have to literally retain on one side. But from a person standing looking at the wall, even though the structure is tall, but it's keyed into the dirt, the wall itself shouldn't be that tall, if I were to design it.

So I think what you're hearing and what I'm kind of saying to staff is we would like some more detail on retaining walls. I think that will also help with the question that Commissioner Ferguson asked on are we... Not something I would leverage as a condition.

I was just curious how one installs a retention basin of this size on that kind of slope.

Sure. For the drywall, and this may not be a question that you have the answer to, but for the drywall that's being proposed, which I assume is your retention, do you have sufficient depth to ground water to meet all of the county's requirements on that?

I had it professionally designed. Okay. I don't know the answer.

I would like to have that verified just because that's a for San Mateo County's LID manual. That's a kind of complex system. It's a great system. I love percolating back into the groundwater, but let's make sure that we have, we don't typically have grade A or B soil in this part of the Bay Area. So I would like to make extra super sure. Commissioner Redfields.

One clarification that came up with the height of the retaining wall. I think that was not a clear number that we had for that. And also, is there a drainage plan or can we have a drainage plan for behind the wall to come up with that? Obviously, retaining a hillside. So it's going to require drainage, and I didn't see or hear reference to a plan for that. So an overall height, obviously the construction of the retaining wall, whether that's a soldier wall or whatever it may be, to do that. Just some clarification on the drainage for that. That would be wonderful. Also, if I could follow up on Commissioner Ferguson's, we didn't see a traffic plan on that for construction equipment, because that's I'm assuming we're going to see probably D7s or D8s up there, just an assumption, some heavy equipment up there. And Roberts is, as you I'm sure well know, we all know, some kind of hazard. It's very downhill, very steep, very narrow with cars parked on Roberts heading towards Crespi. Southbound and also the left turn out of Roberts, so I think a traffic plan for initial equipment also the contractors coming in daily and whatnot mixers and whatnot would be And also for road. I don't think we had anything in there that I'm aware of for potential damage To there may be a curb. I believe there was a curb reference sidewalk and curb reference to any damage and pre-construction or during construction, and also I didn't see a road damage from any heavy equipment coming in on that. So just a traffic plan with those aspects figured in. That would be wonderful.

The last follow-up, since we've imposed this a bunch, but I think that Ohlone Way is not a public street, right? I don't know, are those public right-of-ways?

Is Roberts Road a public right-of-way so it becomes public at Roberts?

Yeah.

I do believe that's somewhere in the packet. It might be in the COAs at the end of the resolution, but we covered road damage.

Yeah, I just was mentioning it. In the past, we've talked about fixing flat work on the street, but I don't think that would be a necessary condition here because...

It's in the city's COAs, not the Ohlone's.

On Roberts, not on Ohlone. Right.

I don't even know if it specifies. It's in general. I can probably find it if you want me to.

But in general, it's...

I was talking so loud anyway. In general, it says where public roadways, blah, blah, blah, damage will be repaired before.

Sure.

At the end of the project.

I'm aware of a sidewalk on Roberts. My concern was much more for equipment turning left onto Fassler during commute times, which I think is a very avoidable thing.

Just a traffic control plan and haul route, simply. And honestly, that typically is something our building official would review and not the planning commission.

That's the question I was going to have is, isn't that a document that I provide at the building department time? I'm just looking to, you know, just another expense that I would pay.

Sure, I just want to make sure they include that as a condition and that it gets complied with, right?

My last question on my list from, I think, Ms. Furby or Ms. Lee was, are you pleading to meet the building requirements for LEED?

The LEED standard, from what I understand, was something that was used extensively 20 years ago, and primarily in commercial buildings, and has really been antiquated by the Cal Green standards, which this building is going to far exceed, just as a matter of course, because we want it to be energy efficient. So I'm certainly not expecting to pay the LEED agency to certify this building.

So I think then the question for staff is what does the condition for the subdivision require? Because it's not really about what, right? Like, I don't think this is a standard that we would originate for a single family home, but if the subdivider agreed to a condition of approval, you guys have to follow the conditions of approval. So maybe what we can do on the next go around is also include the conditions of approval more, um, readily available for the whole subdivision and just make sure that there's not anything in conflict.

I'm not sure with you because we're the fourth one up on this. I'm not sure what the other three did in that regard.

Can you speak louder?

I'm just saying we're the fourth one up on this. I'm not sure what the other three did in that regard.

I was going to say maybe if there's the standard maybe they can show like substantive compliance with the standard in their design.

Right, or like build it green or comparable. It just depends how the condition is worded, right? You have to comply with the conditions. But I don't disagree with you on your assessment of LEED.

There's another funny condition that calls for all appliances to be gas because they're more efficient than electric.

Well, you figure that one out with the staff.

In 20 years, times change is the volume.

So are you adhering to that?

TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, WE'LL DO A COMBINATION OF GAS AND ELECTRIC GAS.

OKAY. SO COULD I PIGGYBACK?

YES, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DIRECTION IS CLEAR TO STAFF, THAT WE JUST DO A COMPARE, AND THEN AGAIN, WHERE THERE'S A BEST PRACTICE THAT'S ALLOWED BY A CONDITION, MAYBE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO INTERPRET SOMETHING 20 YEARS AFTER THE FACT. OKAY.

So I couldn't hear you. So when you said LEED was 20 years ago and antiquated, this house will be built to, and I didn't hear, you said something standard that far exceed that. Could you repeat what that standard is?

California has a building code, has requirements now that are more extensive than LEED was 20 years ago.

Okay. Thank you. And the other thing, I think you just asked that we're going to go, The COAs for the development are still in effect, correct? And I wondered about how thoroughly those were gone through because I know it referenced number 22, green building, and there's like 54 bullets under that. It's a lot.

So I think just some additional staff analysis on what staff's recommendation is and where building code or a reach code that we've passed conflicts with a condition of approval, how do we interpret that? Okay. Did you have a question on birds? For our birder?

I'm also a bird watcher, by the way.

I am. So you understand, though, that the concern is the birds flying into the windows?

I do.

Yeah. And there's, I think, you can actually get glass that helps obscure that. There's treatments afterwards, too, but since you're building it new, I thought maybe if there's a type of glass that has... It mentioned some things in the summation I read on the San Francisco one. That's why I referred to it. And I'm glad to hear you're a birder.

But I would just ask that this project be subject to the same conditions of approval that all Pacifica-wide projects are. It's not special in... any other way, then it's just a nice house. So I feel like it should be subject to the same rules as citywide specific requirements.

I think that you have a very objective commission that would apply this to any project that had a lot of fenestration. And that if you were coming in with a different architecture style with much less glazing, this would be a different comment. But I think there's been, if you look at what this commission has done in the past, there is consistency. But I appreciate the comment. Okay. Does anyone, I feel like everyone has said this is a very lovely building, but since I don't want to really belabor this project more than another hearing, do we have any comments on the structure itself?

It's not a comment to be addressed. I agree with everyone that has stayed today. It's a lovely building. Um, but with respect to minimizing grading, it is nestled in the best location of the lot. But I just think to some projects we've seen on lots that are much smaller and need much less grading and they have less space such as anywhere in Pedro point. And there's typically more of a stepped foundation. those I don't think you change the design of your house by any means but I do just want to acknowledge to minimize grading you could minimize grading a little bit more with more of a stepped foundation versus I mean I think it's probably 2,000 square feet footprint with a second story on top so No action related to that.

Yeah, I grappled with that too because if the mission is to create a 4,300 square foot house with a large garage and recreational spaces, whatever those are, it's very thoughtfully done. Even when we were talking about Birmingham, I had it written on my list, but given the slope, I thought that the use of some native looking stone that I couldn't find any reference to was like a good way to blend the house into the hillside. I thought it was very thoughtfully done. But the one thing I had on the conditions that I was really struggling with is we're required to find that we minimize grading. Minimizing grading is like, it's a subjective idea if you take the envelope of the house to be totally discretionary. Given that you've got a building of this size with this slot and this slope, they probably could make a case for minimizing grading. We're dancing around it, right? The average size home in Pacifica is 1,300 square foot. This is 4,300 square foot. It's got an enormous driveway. It's got big outdoor recreation areas. I get that that's the point of this subdivision. I get that 10 houses, in a lot of ways, less disturbance than 400 houses. I'm just stuck having to make this finding, and how do I How do I say that we minimize grading on this parcel with what appears to be an enormous amount of grading?

DR. Okay. Okay. So what I am hearing is that from an aesthetics standpoint there are not really aesthetic comments beyond to have glass that's appropriate for the amount of glazing that you have. That maybe you can ask your design team if there is any minor minimization of grading that they could implement. But that there aren't any additional comments. Okay.

But just to reiterate, I think the overriding request is for a plan to be updated that shows the limit of grading, limit of disturbance. that reflects the numbers, and then a table summing up how that was calculated to Commissioner Davis' request.

Yeah, and it would be a direction to staff to clarify on the outdoor recreational space, included or not included in disturbed space. I can't see how those two things are related in any way. Putting in a new sewer line and then covering it over back with native fill and seeding it is disturbed, but putting in an unpermeable hardscape is not considered disturbed. That may be the law, which we can work on changing, but that's how it's been presented to me, and I'm really struggling to square that.

Yeah. I think we need the analysis, and then if the applicant is following our rules and the rules suck, then the applicant can follow the rules, but we should change them under something other than this application. Okay. Would you, and I'm going to ask you before I ask our staff, but how much time do you think that you would need in order to look into the comments that we've had?

Oh, I think I can get right on them, so I would prefer to be on the next available meeting.

So that was my question, is can we find a date certain for this applicant?

I would not advise putting it on the next available hearing. The hearing after that is August 17th and we can accommodate it. After that we have September 8th which is a Tuesday meeting.

August 17th or September 8th are both available? So then to the applicant do you have a preference? Is that amenable to you, Deputy Director, August 17th?

Yeah, I would just advise, you know, to meet the 17th, we need to publish by the 12th, and we would need to receive all of your updated materials pretty much by the end of the month.

Okay.

So I would just ask that you confirm with your...

Okay.

Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion to the date certain of August 17th?

I move that we continue this item to a date certain of August 17th. Okay. I'll second.

You beat me.

Sorry. All right. Please vote.

That passes unanimously.

Thank you for your time. Okay.

Let's... Is that your speaker card or your phone number for me? Well, no, he said... My number's on here. Thank you.

Can we just coordinate so everybody, we do a big tour, if that works?

I think we'll need to figure out the Brown Act, and so I will leave it to staff to kind of spearhead coordination.

If not... We can do that.

Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate it. Yeah.

We can't all be there at one time. Okay. So moving on to TA 129-26, text amendment redundancy bonus inclusionary housing ordinance. Do we have a staff report?

I do. And I'll just take a brief moment to get the presentation to... I apologize one more please take your time All right. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Michael Christensen, Deputy Director of Community Development. This evening, the item before you is a text amendment, which you have heard on two different occasions, on May 4th and June 1st. It's Text Amendment 129-26, Text Amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusion in Your Housing Ordinance. The item before you is a minor amendment to the density bonus section, which you have already heard. Our agenda is a brief overview of the density bonus ordinance as a refresher, what happened with our review with the Coastal Commission, a summary of your June 1st Planning Commission hearing, what specific updates to the density bonus ordinance we have back with you here tonight, staff's recommendation, and a draft motion for approval. So as an overview of Density Bonus, it is based in state law. Density Bonus is a section of state law that has existed for quite some time and has been used much more regularly in the past decade or so. It allows developers who provide on-site inclusionary housing units to receive additional density for their development in exchange for providing those deed restricted affordable units on site. And it also allows developers to obtain waivers and concessions or incentives to development standards. Tonight we are back with some technical changes to the ordinance that you already reviewed. So The technical changes include updated density bonus language to comply with recommendations from the California Coastal Commission. These ensure that any concession, waiver, or incentive does not require an amendment to the local coastal plan and adds a section outlining how for any development within the coastal zone, any requested density bonus, concession, or incentive, waiver, or parking reduction shall be consistent with all requirements of the certified local coastal program with the exception of density. As a reminder, local coastal program amendments, their approval process goes through a planning commission recommendation, then a city council adoption. The amendments are effective 30 days later except in the coastal zone. When we have legislative amendments, in addition to going through the local approval process here, the amendment then needs to be filed with the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission holds a public hearing on that. the amendment that is requested and only at that point if it's approved does our local amendment become effective within the coastal zone. So it's very common for the city to obtain legislative amendments and ordinances and then they are temporarily effective outside of the coastal zone but not yet effective within the coastal zone. On June 1st, 2026, this commission heard held a public hearing, which was a continuance of the item from the May 4th hearing. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2026-005 recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance, which was a full repeal and replacement of the city's density bonus and inclusionary housing ordinances. It was agreed to address additional revisions to sections 9-4.4102, the applicability section of the city's density bonus ordinance, and 9-4.4104, the local coastal program consistency section of the density bonus ordinance to the following hearing. The Planning Commission recommended continued coordination between city staff and the California Coastal Commission on those sections concerning the local coastal program. And the updated ordinances that we are presenting today incorporate those recommendations that we have come to after conferring with the California Coastal Commission and looking at model ordinances that speak to this issue of how density bonus applies within the coastal zone. So the revisions are very small. There's only a couple lines of changes from what you recommended approval on during the June 1st hearing. One revision is to section 9-4.4102, the applicability section. The minor modification states that for any project For any housing development project located within the coastal zone that utilizes density bonus, the provisions of section 9-4104 also apply. The prior version that you had reviewed just said that it did not apply within the coastal zone while we were figuring out kind of the proper way to address this. So this applicability section was revised to actually apply the ordinance within the coastal zone and refer to the provisions of 9-4.4104. And then 9-4.4104, the section that speaks to local coastal program consistency, was revised to add two subsections. So subsection A states that state density bonus law provides that it shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976, California Public Resources Code Section 30,000. and further provides that the granting of a density bonus concession or incentive waiver or parking reduction shall not be interpreted in and of itself to require a local coastal plan amendment. Also was added subsection B that states that for development within the coastal zone, any requested density bonus concession or incentive waiver or parking reduction shall be consistent with all applicable requirements of the certified local coastal program with the exception of density, including without limitation to regulations to ensure coastal resources are not significantly impacted and shall be consistent with state density bonus law, so long that it doesn't lead to significant coastal resources impacts. The key thing here is there are many requirements of our local coastal program that seek to protect sensitive areas along the coast. These amendments are added to apply density bonus within the coastal zone as we are legally required to do with or without the ordinance, but to make clear that the requirements of the local coastal program are still fully in effect. So you cannot obtain a waiver or Incentive or concession or other development change to development standards in such a way that it would violate the local coastal program So with that staffs recommendation is that you hold a public hearing take public comments Discuss the proposed amendments and adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council and The draft motion for approval that was prepared in was to move that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included as attachment A to the staff report as amended during your deliberations to include the revisions to Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 9-4.4102, the applicability section, and 9-4.4104, local coastal plan consistency, in the text amendments initiated pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-005, recommending approval to the City Council. This item has not been heard by the City Council yet, and so we would be taking your initial recommendation and this recommendation to that hearing, and it would just be all kind of heard together.

Thank you.

That concludes our presentation.

Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff? I just have a comment. last talked about this and we had no idea when we were going to be able to get this done. The fact that this is already done and it's going to go as one ordinance to the city council is very cool. Thank you for pushing that. That's awesome. Okay. I'm going to open public comment. We have no speaker. We have nobody in the audience. Is anybody on Zoom? There are no speakers. No speakers. Okay. So we're going to close public comment. Does anyone have deliberation or a motion or a question?

I have a real quick question. So in a couple of places the recommendation was to hold a public hearing. That would be this public hearing, I assume? As public as it is? Cool.

Okay, I do have one question because I was signing the Planning Commission ordinance and so I had already spent like four hours rereading and making sure all the edits were in. For this, it's just the the red lines that were changed, right? The ordinance that's in the city council resolution is what the planning commission adopt or recommended adoption for at our last hearing with these two changes that were just on the screen.

That's correct. When it goes to council, we're going to add these red lines to the ordinance.

Okay. Fabulous. Anyone have a motion or comments?

I was against it the first time we met. The second time we met and remained against it for, uh, Level of effort purposes, but that's my two cents.

What are you against?

Updating the municipal ordinances every time state laws change. Got it. Okay. Since they're superseded anyways, I believe it to be a complete waste of effort, like listening to YouTube videos of our commissions for three hours and transcribing via human. Okay.

Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion?

You can put the motion back on the screen, Deputy Director. I have it. I don't mind making it.

Perfect, Commissioner Davis.

I move that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution. Oh, I hope it's the right one, though. Oh, let me read it on the screen. Okay. I move that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included as attachment A to the staff report as amended during Planning Commission deliberations to include the revisions of PMC Sections 9-4.4102, Applicability, and 9-4.4104, Local Coastal Plan Consistency in the text amendments initiated pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-005, recommending approval to the City Council.

Second that.

All right, let's vote.

That passes 5-1 with Commissioner Ferguson voting no.

Okay. I want to thank staff again for working with our Coastal Commission to get that done. That's awesome. Okay. Moving on to Commission Communications. I don't see any... Not that we've been pressing buttons for lights, but does anyone have a Commission Communication?

Push a button for you.

Push a button. Commissioner Ferguson.

I am just... Communicating now to staff and commission that I am out of town for most of the next six weeks. I will definitely miss the August the 3rd meeting, but will maybe make the August the 17th meeting, although unlikely.

Thank you. If we have a meeting on September the 8th, if EDC also has a meeting, I may not be able to attend. for childcare reasons.

Okay.

Any other commission communications? Okay, staff communications.

Good evening, commissioners. I don't really have any communications to share, just I do wonder if there are other commissioners who may be absent on August 3rd.

I've already shared with staff that I will be absent on August 3rd. Yeah.

Yeah, he will. I heard you say that August 3rd is taken. Could you share what you're planning to have on the August 3rd meeting? I just know I'm not going to be here either way.

Yes, staff is planning to have an additional appeal of an administrative letter that was sent regarding the Coastal Crest Builders Remedy application. Staff sent an inconsistency letter to the applicant noting that the project was inconsistent with the voter initiative as well as the LCLUP and the applicant has appealed that determination per the code appeals of planning decisions go to the Planning Commission. So the appeal will be on those two items in staff's inconsistency letter.

Okay. I would love to be here, but I won't.

I will be in a national park.

So that's going to happen on the 3rd?

That's correct.

It seems like these folks would be important to be at that meeting, you know?

We will certainly look at the schedule and the appeal time frames as well as what else is on the agenda.

I'm back the following week. I'd be more than happy to participate in a special meeting. Okay. I believe that concludes staff's communications. Okay. So is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

All right, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.