Pacifica commissioners continue rezoning and retroactive‑grading item after residents raise safety, access and transparency concerns

The Pacifica Planning Commission voted to continue consideration of a rezone, development plan and specific plan for 650 Cape Breton Drive — the former Park Pacifica Stables — after extensive public comment and commissioner questions about process, public access, stormwater and the implications of converting the property to Planned Development (PD) zoning.

Senior Planner James Lin presented the application, telling the commission the item is a request to rezone two parcels (currently R-1 and C-R with a Hillside Preservation District overlay) to PD with the HPD overlay, and to approve a development plan and specific plan to authorize retroactive grading and to document existing single-family residential use. The filing follows a Notice of Violation (May 20, 2021) that identified roughly 100 to 300 cubic yards of sand and soil moved inside and around a covered arena without permit; the applicant seeks to legalize the grading and install erosion-control measures and a prefabricated carport to meet HPD parking code.

The application is the product of a code enforcement process. Planner Lin said no new construction or demolition is proposed and that, as presented, no additional grading or relocation of soils is planned; instead, the application documents the existing conditions, erosion controls and a request for a retroactive grading permit.

More than a dozen residents offered public comment, many opposing rezoning and expressing concern about noise, traffic, trail access and possible future development. Several speakers identified the property owner as Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC). Neighbors recounted past unpermitted activity, a documented stormwater flooding event that damaged one home, obstructed trail access to Sweeney Ridge, instances of locked fences and restricted public access, and concerns about large gatherings that blocked narrow Cape Breton Drive. Lisa Funkhauser, a neighbor who described water damage to her home in October 2021, told the commission that floodwater contained “horse manure and hay” and caused more than $26,000 in damage; she urged commissioners not to rezone the parcel because, she said, rezoning “opens the door” to uses the neighborhood did not expect.

Commissioners asked multiple procedural and technical questions. Commissioner Godwin asked whether a zoning-text amendment or administrative permit option had been considered as a way to authorize retroactive grading without rezoning one site — city staff said that approach was not evaluated in this application and that the Hillside Preservation District procedures typically require a planned development reclassification. Commissioner Ferguson and others pressed staff to clarify why the case required a PD rezone when many single‑family projects with grading do not appear before the commission; staff said the HPD overlay triggers the planned development procedures for land disturbance on hillside properties. Commissioners also sought details about whether best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and stormwater control remain in place and on the status of prior enforcement fines; staff said BMPs were reported to be installed (straw wattles, tarps) and that prior fines had been satisfied.

Planner Lin and the applicant’s representative, consulting engineer Joe Toodle, said the applicant’s objective is to obtain the retroactive grading authorization and comply with the city’s requirements; Toodle told the commission the owner was following the process recommended by staff. Neighbors and commenters asked for clearer information about future intended uses of the entire site, and several speakers and commissioners raised concerns that the public had limited access to application materials online because of Senate Bill 1214 restrictions on publishing copyrighted architectural plans; staff said plans are available for in‑person inspection at city offices or by appointment and that the city will assist with access on request.

Commissioners proposed additional research and interim steps. Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable approving a permanent PD rezoning as the mechanism for a retroactive grading permit and suggested alternatives: confirming that erosion‑control BMPs are inspected and enforced during any continuance, exploring whether a narrower rezoning or a different administrative route could achieve compliance, and asking Public Works/stormwater staff to advise on pollutant and drainage issues and any outstanding corrective work. The commission asked staff to confirm public‑access easements and to report back on alternatives to rezoning before the item returns.

Vice Chair Berman moved to continue the item to a date uncertain with the directions above; Commissioner Ferguson made the motion and Vice Chair Berman seconded; the motion passed unanimously. Staff said they will return with the requested analyses and will confirm that the site’s BMPs remain in place and inspected during the continuance.

The record for the application includes the hearing‑officer notice of violation (05/20/2021), a staff report with attachments describing the grading estimates (100–300 cubic yards), references to Pacifica Municipal Code sections applicable to the Hillside Preservation District and parking (PMC 9‑4.2256 and 9‑4.2259), and the applicant’s submittals (available for in‑person review per SB 1214 restrictions).