Pacifica planning panel recommends denial of rezoning that would allow retroactive grading at 650 Cape Breton Drive
Loading...
Summary
The Pacifica Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of a rezone, development plan and specific plan for 650 Cape Breton Drive that staff said was needed to clear a 2021 grading violation; commissioners said required PD findings could not be made and cited public concerns about past grading, contamination and gatherings.
The Pacifica Planning Commission voted unanimously on Monday to recommend City Council deny a rezone and related permits that would have allowed the owner of 650 Cape Breton Drive to obtain a retroactive grading permit and a small prefabricated carport.
Staff told the commission the parcels lie within the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and, under the city code, land disturbance in that overlay requires reclassification to a Planned Development (PD) district, adoption of a development plan and a specific plan before a grading permit may be issued. Senior planner James Lynn said staff reviewed alternatives and concluded there is no statutory pathway to approve the grading without the PD process; staff recommended the commission find the project CEQA-exempt and forward approval to council.
The applicant's attorney, Sigrid Wagoner of Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, said the work at issue was the relocation of sand from inside a covered equestrian arena and not 'traditional grading.' Wagoner told commissioners the owner disputed the original notice of violation but the city's hearing officer entered a final order and the owner has completed remediation steps; she said, 'All we are doing is legalizing, regulating our existing grading that has been done.'
Neighborhood speakers urged denial. Resident Lisa Funkhouser said sand removed from the arena contained 'contaminated' equestrian waste and other material and described property damage and harassment she attributed to activities at the site. Clifford Lawrence, calling the proposal 'a crock,' urged the commission to deny rezoning that he said could enable unanticipated future uses. Several residents said traffic, noise from large gatherings and the lack of a clear, site-wide plan made the PD route inappropriate for what they described as a corrective action.
Commissioners focused on legal process and required findings. Several members said the PD/development-plan findings in the municipal code (including that the project would 'create an environment of sustained desirability and stability' and provide benefits not achievable through other districts) did not fit a proposal whose primary purpose, as presented, was to clear a code enforcement order. Commissioners also asked whether a conditional use permit or a variance could accomplish the same result; staff and the city attorney said those paths are not available where HPD rules require a PD reclassification for grading and land disturbance.
After a brief recess while staff drafted denial findings, commissioners approved a staff-prepared resolution that lists the subsections they could not make and recommends City Council deny the rezone, development plan and specific plan. The commission's action does not vacate the enforcement order; rather, it sends the commission's recommendation and stated findings to council for its consideration. Staff noted that because the commission recommended denial there is no need for further CEQA review of an approved project at this stage.
The item will proceed to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. The commission approved routine consent items and designated Commissioner Devine as liaison for a separate Dec. 8 council item before adjourning.
