Pacifica planning commissioners continue Lot 7 hillside home after questions over disturbed-area math and missing civil plans

The Pacifica Planning Commission continued action on a proposed single-family specific plan for Lot 7 of the Ohlone Point (Harmony) subdivision to Aug. 17, asking the applicant to submit missing civil and grading plans and to reconcile inconsistent disturbed-area figures in the packet.

Contract planner Crystal Rizzi told commissioners the site is a 1.3-acre hillside parcel with 13 on-site trees, an average slope of 26.5% and a proposed 4,300-square-foot home that would keep roughly 71% of the lot in its natural state. Rizzi said staff’s recommended findings include that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Harmony at 1 Roberts Road Subdivision environmental impact report and recommended approval of SP-18524 with conditions, but she also noted discrepancies among disturbed-area numbers appearing in the staff materials.

The applicant, Kevin Russell, who identified himself as a longtime Pacifica resident and the project presenter, defended the design and materials and said the project was sited to minimize visual impact and grading. “We kept earthwork confined to the building envelope area where possible and avoided the steep southern slopes,” Russell said, and asked the commission to approve the project as recommended by staff.

Several members of the public urged stricter enforcement of the subdivision’s original conditions of approval and stronger wildlife protections. Summer Lee said concessions negotiated with the developer years ago “were not followed,” asked the commission to require a compliance review before final permits are issued and urged protections for birds given the large expanses of glass in the design. Dinah Verbie, who said she helped negotiate the subdivision’s original conditions, echoed calls for enforcement of the requirements, including the subdivision’s green-building commitments.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for technical details. Rizzi acknowledged the staff report used multiple lot-area numbers and said the discrepancy appeared to stem from double-counting in a table; she said her plan-measure of the disturbed area was about 12,000 square feet while another table in the packet listed roughly 16,000 square feet. Commissioners asked for a single reconciled calculation and for a clear overlay showing which areas were counted as disturbed, which areas were treated as “recreational facilities” excluded from HPD (Hillside Preservation District) coverage, and which surfaces would be pervious or impervious.

Several commissioners said key civil sheets—grading plans, stormwater details and retaining-wall sections—were not available in the packet and that absence made it infeasible to complete the review. Commissioners asked the applicant to supply civil/grading plans, a table explaining the disturbed-area math, retaining-wall heights and drainage details, a construction haul and traffic-control/route plan, and documentation showing how any off-haul of excavated soil would be minimized or reused for berming where appropriate.

On bird-safety, Commissioner Davis asked whether bird-friendly glazing or other mitigation could be required; the applicant said the project would meet current California building standards and that the team could provide more detail on glazing treatment if the commission requested it. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify which subdivision conditions from 2007 remain in effect and whether those conditions require LEED or equivalent standards for the home.

Given the range of technical and packet deficiencies raised at the hearing, the commission agreed to continue the matter to a date certain of Aug. 17 to allow the applicant to submit the missing materials and for staff to publish a list of requested clarifications. A motion to continue to Aug. 17 passed unanimously.

What’s next: Staff will publish a consolidated list of the commission’s requested materials; the applicant expects to respond and asked to be placed on the Aug. 17 agenda. The commission explicitly requested civil/grading plans, a reconciled disturbed-area calculation with overlay, retaining-wall and drainage details, construction haul-route/traffic-control plans, and documentation about compliance with original subdivision COAs prior to the next hearing.