The Pacifica Planning Commission on Dec. 1 approved a site development permit (PSD‑83818) and tree permit (TP424) to allow construction of an approximately 3,180‑square‑foot single‑family residence with an attached three‑car garage on a roughly 26,055‑square‑foot undeveloped lot near Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bayview Road.

The commission’s approval, adopted by motion of Commissioner Ferguson and seconded by Commissioner Redfield, carried 4–0 with Commissioner Davis recorded as an abstention. The decision followed a lengthy hearing in which neighbors raised concerns about short notice, drainage, slope stability, driveway design and potential property damage during construction.

Neighbors sought a continuance, saying they did not receive mailed notices with a full 10 days to review materials before the hearing. "I wasn't home to receive the letter…that didn't allow the 10 days that the neighbors should have to look over everything," said resident Susan Miller, one of several speakers who asked the commission to delay action. Staff responded that notices were posted and taken to the post office on Nov. 20 and that the staff report had been posted online earlier in the week; Director Samantha Updegrave told the commission, "The notices were posted on November 20 and taken to the post office that day."

Technical concerns dominated public comment. Multiple residents described frequent sheet‑flow on Bayview Road during storms and worried that grading and retaining walls could exacerbate erosion or trigger slope movement. "I'm worried about a mudslide or a landslide when I clean up all the vegetation uphill," said neighbor Mamoru Takeishi.

The applicant, Javier Chavarria of JC Engineering, said the project team had produced additional geotechnical borings and reports and revised the drainage design. Chavarria told the commission that two independent soils firms, together with city review, concluded the site is suitable for the proposed design and that new drainage features (bioswales, a rain‑harvesting system with backup pumping, and biodetention areas) would reduce post‑development runoff. "The geotechnical has been done by 2 separate firms with the same conclusion," Chavarria said during rebuttal.

To address public concerns the commission and staff added and clarified conditions of approval. Key requirements recorded in the adopted resolution include:

- Geotechnical oversight: the applicant must retain a California‑licensed geotechnical engineer to provide required review, observation and testing during grading, drilled pier construction and retaining‑wall work; the city will require special inspections and a letter from the geotechnical engineer certifying that recommendations were implemented prior to occupancy. (Staff amended the notice period for geotechnical inspectors to the report‑recommended minimum of 72 hours.)

- Hydraulic verification: the applicant must submit hydraulic calculations and a letter from the civil engineer of record showing the proposed storm‑drain system does not increase runoff above predevelopment conditions; on‑site detention/detention systems must be sized to detain flows in excess of existing flows for a 100‑year storm event and to release peak flows at rates equal to or less than existing conditions.

- Preconstruction survey and repair obligation: a photo or video survey of public improvements along Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue must be submitted prior to permits; any damage to city streets or public improvements caused by the project must be repaired by the applicant at the applicant’s expense.

- Operations and maintenance: the applicant must record a maintenance agreement for stormwater treatment measures (bioretention/bioswales/detention) and specify an inspection interval to be determined by the city engineer (staff proposed biannual reviews, with the precise timing set by the city engineer and captured in the maintenance plan). The draft agreement must be recorded prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and final recorded agreements must be in place prior to occupancy.

- Improvement agreement/security: before issuance of any grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant must enter into a recorded improvement agreement with the city that defines the retaining‑wall and related improvements and that requires security in an amount needed to complete those improvements as determined by the city engineer; the form of the agreement and the security will be reviewed by the city attorney and city engineer.

Commissioners also explored design tradeoffs around the proposed fire‑access hammerhead and driveway. The applicant said the North County Fire Authority required a turnaround inside the property and that prior attempts to retain a narrower or greener surface were rejected by fire engineers because the apparatus access must support the truck weight and turning movements. Commissioners encouraged staff, the applicant and the fire district to continue to seek less intrusive paving solutions where feasible, while recognizing fire access and hydro‑modification requirements constrain options.

Project specifics recorded in the staff materials and the adopted resolution include a proposed single‑family home of approximately 3,180 square feet (upper/lower levels described in project drawings), an attached 668‑square‑foot three‑car garage, removal of one protected Monterey pine (plus one dead protected pine) with a 2:1 replacement requirement (four new Monterey pines), approximately 3,900 square feet of new landscaping and roughly 11,248 square feet of the lot remaining undisturbed. The record notes the site’s general plan designation is low‑density residential and the zoning hillside R‑1‑H.

The commission incorporated the staff report, the geotechnical studies, public testimony and the conditions read into the record into the adopted resolution. The final motion approved the CEQA exemption under CEQA Guideline 15303 (new construction of small structures) and approved the site development and tree permits for assessor’s parcel 022‑062‑550, with the conditions described above. The applicant and staff confirmed they will post the additional easement document and revise online materials as appropriate.

The commission closed the hearing and moved on to other commission and staff communications; the meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

What happens next: the permit approvals are subject to the recorded conditions and the applicant must satisfy standard building‑permit, geotechnical, and stormwater review steps (including the recorded improvement agreement/security for retaining‑wall completion) before the city will issue grading or building permits or allow occupancy.