Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. GPA-100-21 File No. 2018-057 – General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21, RZ-201-18 Rezoning RZ-201-18, Development Plan DP-79-18, Specific DP-79-18 Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18 and Parking SP-169-18 Exception PE-191-21, filed by Matthew and Margaret PV-526-18 Murphy, for a General Plan land use designation change to PE-191-21 Very Low Density Residential (VLDR), rezoning to the P-D (Planned Development) HPD (Hillside Preservation District) zoning districts, authorization for single-family residential use and construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with a two-car garage on a 24,149-sf undeveloped parcel, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue (APN-016- 270-110 in Pacifica. A variance is required to exceed the allowable coverage within the HPD zoning district and a variance and parking exception are required to deviate from the guest parking requirement within the HPE zoning district.
Recommended CEQA Action: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Chair Nibbelin asked, as it was a continued item, if it was appropriate to give the applicant the opportunity to speak on the matter.
Asst. City Atty. Messinger stated that, if the public hearing was continued open, it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to offer more testimony and evidence in support of his application, as well as anyone who may wish to speak on the application.
Chair Nibbelin thought they took comment from applicant and public and closed it and brought it back to the Commission to decide how to proceed on taking additional comment.
Mr. Messinger stated that he would defer to Dep. Planning Director Murdock but it would depend on whether the item had been advertised as a new public hearing but he didn’t recall the answer to that.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock clarified that they did not specify whether it is a new or continued public hearing when they publish the legal advertising for the public hearing.
He recommended that they reopen the public hearing, provided Mr. Messinger is open to that, as there is new information in the record related to the vantage point renderings and other new information that the applicant and/or public may appreciate having the opportunity to comment.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
Chair Nibbelin thought it made sense, and as long as the commissioners agreed, he thought they can allow the applicant to speak to additional information that has come to the Commission and allow the public to comment. He thought, due to possible anticipated speakers, they might reduce the time for comment to two minutes and ask that they focus on the new information as they have received a lot of comment at the first hearing. He also thought it might be nice, before comments, to share the renderings they received in their packet to have the opportunity to see that. He asked if any commissioners had anything additional to ask.
Commissioner Hauser would appreciate putting the renderings as she liked some type of graphic to orient the Commission and public and thought it would be helpful in the future when staff is presenting.
Chair Nibbelin thought Dep. Planning Director Murdock was having trouble sharing via Zoom and they may have to consider an alternative tech option to share. He then moved to the applicant to see if he can move the renderings into a presentation, and will give the applicant up to ten minutes to speak to the new information.
Brendan Murphy, applicant, stated that they were hoping to build their family home on this site. He stated that they are proposing a modest home for their family, not for the super-rich. They hope to build the home and make Pacifica their community. He stated that his father lives a block away from the project site, and over the years, they have realized what a wonderful town Pacifica is and their dream is to be a part of the community and live a block from his children’s grandfather. He stated they have amended the plan as needed and they hope the Commission can bring the project to a vote.
Chair Nibbelin asked Mr. Chavarria if he had some additional information to share.
Javier Chavarria, applicant, thanked them for the opportunity speak on the matter. He has little to add, except that they have designed the project following all the guidelines and adjusted it as required by Planning Department, Fire Department, etc., and he feel that they have also complied with additional requirements made and he felt, from the technical standpoint, they have designed a good project on a challenging site and the design has taken those challenges into consideration to create a project that will be sound, safe and an enhancement for the community.
Chair Nibbelin hoped someone would be able to share the renderings with appropriate comments.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that staff is willing and ready to do that when the applicant’s time is completed as he doesn’t want to take their ten minutes until their public comment opportunity is concluded.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
Mr. Chavarria stated he would defer to staff as they feel they have provided all the information and they believe the renderings are self-explanatory. They would rather answer any questions or respond any concerns but there is very little else they can add.
Chair Nibbelin asked to walk through the renderings and can ask applicant any questions now or after they hear from the public.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he would go first and Contract Planner Aggarwal can add anything he may leave out. He stated that the Commission asked for three vantage points, Grace McCarthy scenic overlook, Milagra Ridge from the public trails area, vantage point at the cul-de-sac at the east end of Canyon Drive, and a fourth vantage from the eastern terminus from Talbot where the project is accessed. He stated that the Commission didn’t provide criteria for the renderings other than showing what the home would look like. He mentioned some of the criteria of the renderings. He commented that, given the foggy conditions that occurred when the applicant took the picture for the rendering, it doesn’t reflect additional landscaping that may be included in the project as proposed in the final landscape plan which further soften the building and compliment the architecture and design of the site.
Chair Nibbelin asked the Commissioners if it was appropriate to take public comment or ask any comments they have.
Vice Chair Berman had a question on rendering No. 3. She appreciated the landscaping that helps screen the new home from invading visually in the backyard the home in the foreground, but given the slopes of the site, she asked if it was feasible to plant a substantial tree at this location.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought that might be a question for the applicant as they identified the tree species proposed and could possibly elaborate on the thought process for those specific species.
Vice Chair Berman stated she would direct her question to the applicant.
Mr. Chavarria stated that, initially, they discussed whether some screening could be done and they proposed some larger trees. He stated that the soil engineer recommended against planting larger trees as they could be detrimental to the performance of the hillside and the idea was abandoned. He stated that the tree seen there were trees that existed at the time that the photographs were taken and the home is behind that. He pointed out that the trees to the right of the home are similar to the ones in the back and are existing vegetation, not proposed vegetation. He stated that if, by accident, any of the original trees they proposed were left in there to the left of the proposed home, it is definitely not their intent to put any big trees along that section. The planting will be more in line to what their soil engineer recommended, shrubbery ground coverage and vegetation that does not grow too big.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
Vice Chair Berman apologized that she can’t tell the difference between an existing tree and a rendering of a tree, and she concluded that he said only the one tree shown on the left is a rendering and the rest are existing.
Mr. Chavarria stated that he did not prepare the renderings. There was a company hired to do that and they went through several iterations. He understood that the row of trees immediately behind the home are very similar to the ones on the right side which are trees that were existing on the original conditions. He stated that, if he is erroneous, their intent is not to plant any additional trees from what the current conditions are.
Vice Chair Berman stated that she is trying to figure out is whether there are going to be trees to help screen the house from Canyon Drive and visually screen for privacy the homes directly downhill of the house.
Mr. Chavarria stated it was a catch 22. He stated that, through the planning process, the Planning Department suggested that they plant some trees but on the previous meeting it was brought up by the public that the trees may not be the best alternative for the hillside.
They then consulted with their geotechnical engineer and with people are technically able to make such a determination, and it was established that large trees will bring roots deeper into the hillside that may create a problem with erosion and there was a balancing act, i.e., do they provide a screening and create negative impacts on the hillside, and their final approach is that they are not going to plant any big trees but create shrubbery that are more into the native type of species there that will definitely shield the lower portion of the building, but will not grow tall.
Vice Char Berman agreed that it shouldn’t be sought to plant large trees on a steep slope.
She was trying to understand the visual privacy in the rendering with what trees are already there.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock added that, on packet page 158, the applicant’s landscape plan does indicate tree planting in that location and they will want clarification if the applicant is seeking to formally amend the application to remove the trees or replace them with different species. He stated that currently, there are 6 or 7 Arbutus marina shrubbery trees in that location which are not generally particularly large trees, but they would provide some screening benefit, and that is the information staff used to evaluate the project, so they need clarification from the applicant.
Vice Chair Berman stated she would support that clarification request.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they want to do what is right for the project from the technical standpoint and visual standpoint, and along the process they have had initial requests for screening which is when the trees were proposed. He believes that the project can be conditioned to have a type of tree that their geologist, peer review, and landscape architect establish that are trees that will not grow too tall, will not be detrimental to the hillside, and from their standpoint, that would be perfectly acceptable as they want to do Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
what is right for the project, slope stability wise and screening wise, without compromising either one.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thanked him and then, for the Commission, he clarified that on packet page 51, that is exactly what Mr. Chavarria just stated that staff prepared condition approval No. 10, and it was a fairly standard condition related to the final landscape plan but they did specifically add language to have the project geotechnical confirm in writing prior to issuance of a building or grading permit that all proposed plantings and any proposed irritation system would be consistent with the recommendation to maintain slope stability, including but not limited to the recommendation to avoid excessive irrigation to preserve slope stability. He added that, if an irrigation system is not proposed, the applicant shall provide a written statement by a licensed landscape architect that the proposed plantings can be successfully established without installation of a permanent irrigation system, etc. He stated that they have taken into account the relationship between plantings, screening and slope stability, and took what they felt was a reasonable measure to obtain written confirmation that the plantings are acceptable and would ensure slope stability, but they were able to modify it to suit the Commission’s desire.
Vice Chair Berman thanked him for that information, adding that her personal opinion was that slope stability will win over planting but she was looking forward to deliberating her fellow commissioners.
Contract Planner Aggarwal stated that she can share a Google image of what it looks like now if helpful.
Vice Chair Berman thought it would be very helpful.
Contract Planner Aggarwal asked if it was visible.
Chair Nibbelin stated that it was and was very useful.
Vice Chair Berman thanked her.
Chair Nibbelin opened the Public Hearing, and hoped they would address only matters not addressed at the previous meeting.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock reminded the public that he was having difficulties sharing his screen to show the timer but he will be timing to keep track of the two-minute time limit and will remind them when one minute remains. He then introduced the speakers.
Curt Kiest, Pacifica, stated he lived at 630 Talbot, six houses below the proposed house and he strongly supports allowing Mr. Murphy’s family to build this house, having discussed it with multiple neighbors to let him build his house. He mentioned that when Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
he moved here 30 years ago, he knew it was zoned R-1 and had an HPD overlay and a single family home could be built. He opposes commercial, etc., but supports this project and would consider it a tragedy to postpone and would go to court if they are denied the opportunity to build a simple, nice home.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock mentioned that they received one public comment in writing prior to the hearing but after the packet was posted on the city’s website and he will share it with the commissioners.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, stated she purchased 722 Talbot and were looking forward to moving in the home in a few weeks. She stated that the only concern she had that might have been addressed was the driveway which will be next to a driveway that exists with a plan for creating drainage which makes sense, given what nature has done, and she asked if there was any concern that creating the drainage under the driveway might undermine the dirt under the existing driveway. She didn’t know how it was built but she wanted to know if there was any potential adverse impacts to the driveway as they are next to each other. She wants to make sure she is prepared for what is going on.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she sent written comments earlier about the fire issues she brought up previously and don’t seem to have been addressed and she looks forward to having them addressed now. She then referred to the HPD variance requested as she has been trying to understand that with projects all over Pacifica, mentioning one, and she was waiting for the Planning Commission minutes of the November 2004, explaining the specifics on it. She mentioned that there was a lot of discretion available to them in determining what is reasonable use as this is a small pertinent piece of land and not in the same category as the value of adjacent homes. She then mentioned steps and concrete landings on the east side of the house is not shown on the site plan and is missing in the HPD calculations and she encouraged them to fix that before they approve this so she doesn’t have to appeal another one.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he had pushback after his comments at the last meeting that the houses were built on the other side of Talbot and it makes sense to build on the opposite side. He asked that person to rethink that statement as there was a reason why they built on one side. He stated that they are now going to ignore limitations and dangers that those people recognized were a reason not to build there. He stated that this requires an amendment to the General Plan and he read that a city was allowed four amendments to the General Plan in a year, and he didn’t know if the city observed that, but he wanted it in the record and asks for response on that. He hopes they realize they are in HPD territory and the landowners below should have some guarantee of liability of any landslide this creates that could come down on them.
Jim Nichols, Pacifica, stated he lives at 700 Talbot, two houses down from the project, and they were in favor of being allowed to build their home. He stated their concern previously was about extra cars in the traffic turnaround but he understands there is Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
additional off street parking. He assumed that, by the size of their foundation on the hill, the Murphy’s house will have a substantial foundation that will anchor it to the hill.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, stated that she was compelled to comment after looking at the location of the project. She empathized with the Murphy family but this is new construction into a hillside that should have been carefully considered when shopping for a family home site. She stated that new construction is a long process with many challenges. She stated that the point of the General Plan update is to demonstrate what is appropriate and inappropriate development in land use in Pacifica, and a parcel for sale doesn’t mean building on it is the appropriate use of the land. She thinks this project undermines the spirit and intent of the city goal and is an attempt to amend an operable General Plan to construct inconsistent with and in violation of the General Plan. She also questioned how it is exempt from CEQA, mentioning her concerns.
Marie Kazan-Komarek, Pacifica, stated she lives at 620 Talbot, seven houses from the project, and she welcomed the Murphy family, thinking it is a reasonable, modest project.
Terrence Kero, Pacifica, stated he lives at 710 Talbot, across the street from this planned house. He is a retired engineer who looked at the plans and he sees no problem building a house on a slope like that. He thought it was very modest and he welcomed the new neighbor as almost all the neighbors on the street have.
Chair Nibbelin asked if there was time on the ten minutes left to allow Mr. Chavarria or the owner to speak on any matters raised.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that it was standard practice to allow up to three minutes reserved for the rebuttal and they had more than three minutes remaining on the ten minutes.
Chair Nibbelin stated that he will ask the applicant.
Mr. Chavarria stated that, to answer one of the questions of the immediate neighbor regarding the drainage of the driveway, the drainage is very carefully considered and will improve the current conditions of uncontrolled drainage in the area. He stated that they have velocity dissipators and ways to mitigate some of the runoff that is currently happening and the conditions will actually be improved. He stated that, regarding the trees, the google view Planning staff presented shows that their rendering is very close to representing those existing trees and the view as seen in the rendering is very consistent with the current conditions.
Chair Nibbelin closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Hauser thought she understood that they are getting a variance from HPD and are not removing the parcel from HPD.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that there are multiple actions required should the Commission want to approve this project. Regarding the HPD zoning overlay, he stated that it is an overlay zoning district that does require rezoning to the planned development zoning district, per the City’s municipal code requirements. He stated that the HPD overlay would remain in place and would not be affected by the rezoning that is proposed. He added that the underlying zoning district would be rezoned to the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district as required by the municipal code and would not require a vote of the people and the property is not zoned agricultural. He stated that the current zoning would change to PD and the HPD zoning overlay would remain in place unchanged. He then stated that a variance is proposed for two aspects of the project, and the one subject to most discussion among public comments was the allowable coverage under the Hillside Preservation District as coverage limitations are one of the components of HPD, and they establish a maximum amount of paving, grading and building based on a formula that is driven by the site area and the average slope of the site. He stated that, because of its size and slope, this site would be eligible for 0% coverage under the HPD formula and on its face would say nothing could be constructed but there is expressed language in the HPD ordinance that says that the provisions of the HPD shall not be applied to be confiscatory which means to deny all economic use of property solely on the basis of the HPD coverage limitation. He stated that is why staff is recommending approval of a variance to allow coverage in excess of 0%, and in this case, the amount of coverage proposed by the applicant. He stated that the Commission has discretion to change the amount of coverage or to conclude that a variance is not appropriate for the coverage. He thought that staff and possibly the City Attorney would want to advise them carefully on how to proceed with such a decision to deny any coverage for the project site but it would not be staff’s recommendation to do that. He stated that the coverage that has been proposed is to allow this project as a reduced amount of coverage would change the project and they should explore what that would look like with the applicant if possible. He stated that there was a second variance recommended by staff for the HPD’s off street parking requirement and a parking exception proposed for the same deviation from the one off street guest parking requirement which is drafted in the HPD regulations. He stated it is intended to be one space per ten dwelling units and, as staff has analyzed and recommended, they believe it is a burdensome requirement and a variance is justified for the project. He stated that the applicant, at the Commission’s request, has demonstrated how it can provide the off street parking space, but it is in the tradeoff for less landscaped area, and that is a condition for the Commission to make as to which is preferred in this case.
Commissioner Hauser thanked him for the thoughtful analysis. Her second point of clarification is that, at the last meeting, staff gave them details about the adjacent property that also had a variance, and she asked them to take her through that again.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he will check to see if that information is available as he thought they may have been in notes he prepared for the meeting and he may not be able to provide them immediately but he will do his best.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
Commissioner Hauser suggested that they come back to that.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, in general terms, the project immediately next door also required a variance from the HPD coverage and, as a commenter correctly stated, the site is larger and has a less steep average slope and it is not an apples to apples comparison. He stated that the findings for approval of a variance do require considering similarly situated property in the same zone and in the immediate vicinity of the project site in question. He stated that, for purposes of considering an HPD variance, it was probably the only relevant comparison property, given that not all of the properties in the area are zoned HPD. That one is immediately abutting and adjacent to the project site and that is the reason for relevance for purposes of considering the variant.
Commissioner Hauser appreciated the renderings that were put together, especially No. 2, even if foggy. She was the least comfortable of the Commissioners when they reviewed this the first time and she recommended continuing this. She thinks that, looking at how large the adjacent home is in rendering No. 2 compared to the modest size of this home and understanding that they did a variance for the neighbors next door, she would appreciate hearing what the other commissioners have to say as it meant a lot to her that the Murphy family went out and did additional renderings to show that to them which was helpful.
Commissioner Domurat concurs with Commissioner Hauser about the renderings and he thanked the owners for doing that as he didn’t think they were legally required to do that in a permit process. He thought they could discuss that in the future as he thought it was important to see what it will look like, but added that he didn’t think they could hold it against them if they didn’t do it. He asked staff, when a letter comes in as Ms. Boles presented to them, how much time does staff have to look at that and draft some kind of response. He stated that will come up in another project where there were a lot of comments in the last two days that it was almost impossible for them to consider all those at a meeting like this. He thought the most important comment he found, hoping he is not taking Ms. Boles’ comment out of context, was about the fire issue. He referred to the distance from where water would be available and didn’t know if Ms. Boles could stipulate exactly what she was looking for, but he thought it was a critical comment to make them feel comfortable about fire issues, not only for that home and those in the area, but also in the surrounding hillsides.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, regarding the fire code issue, the comments and request from the commenter was a sense of the specific code requirement. He thought the exception to the 150-foot distance from a fire apparatus access road is found in California Fire Code Section 503.1.1 which requires a fire apparatus access road to be within 150 feet of all portions of a structure with certain exceptions, including where the fire code official would be authorized to increase the dimension with no limits, with one of the conditions when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system install in accordance with the sections referenced and this building would have such a fire sprinkler system as a new structure and if there are other Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
topographical or other considerations that would affect the ability to provide the distance, an approved alternative means of fire protection are provided. He then stated that there are no more than two group R-3 occupancies. He stated that more than one of those exception conditions are met in this case, as the building will have sprinklers and it involves only one group R-3 occupancy which is a single family dwelling. He stated that Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh was present to speak to any other fire code related questions.
He stated that the issue of wild land interface concerns as some commenters mentioned was specifically considered and discussed by North County Fire Authority Dep. Fire Chief and staff and the city’s building official from the Planning Department, and their conclusion was that this did not qualify as such a wild land interface and additional building code standards and requirements were not appropriate for this project location, and there were no concerns related to the ability of the North County Fire Authority to respond to fires in this area, on the project site or if the site were to exacerbate or contribute to worsening the wildland fire risk in this area. He concluded that staff very seriously took the fire risk of this project and analyzed it carefully.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated he was correct about California Fire Code 5031.1 that those exceptions to the hose pull of 150 feet when you have a sprinkler residential home which qualifies as an exception. He referred to the renderings he has looked at, stating that there are three of them that this project has gone through and he talked with the other two fire Marshalls who were in position prior to his time on the project, stating that they don’t have an issue with the project with fire related or fire protection issues. He stated that they looked at the slopes on the driveway and there is a hose pull now that is about 138 feet from the start of the driveway and a fire engine could almost pull into the driveway up to the front garage and with the sprinklers and how it is sitting, there is not much of a concern when it comes to the issue of fire protection.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock then referred to the other part of Commissioner Domurat’s question regarding the process, stating it was not typical for staff to prepare a written response to public comment letters that come in. They try to touch on any points in the comment letters that may reflect erroneous information presented by a commenter or that would seek to undermine the findings for approval as analyzed by staff. He stated that occasionally staff does make mistakes and they try to correct them when they identify a commenter has found a mistake in their analysis or in some piece of evidence.
He stated that, in this case, they brought in an expert, as in the case of Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh, to address the fire related issues and he didn’t know other issues directly related to the findings for approval. He stated that the commenter was correct that the dimensions on the fire hose pole from the driveway were incorrect and are over 150 feet and, as they outlined, that was not a fatal flaw for the analysis of the project. He thought the commenter is expecting a level of review for fire code compliance that is not typical at the planning stage and what the Fire Authority strives to do is to identify fire code issues that may affect project feasibility where if identified later in the process, following Planning Commission approval, it could prevent the project from being constructed in the way intended but all the detailed fire code compliance review is done after a project is approved by the Planning Commission during the building permit review phase but they Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
do use some judgment in trying to determine which code requirements are applicable, but they are generally higher level feasibility and site planning constraints that are brought into this level of analysis.
Vice Chair Berman appreciated everyone’s work on the continuance of this project. She thought a lot of their previous comments were addressed or clarified with this resubmission. She was inclined to agree with staff’s recommendation on the parking variance. She appreciated the applicant taking a look at adding the parking stall to the site to not require that variance but she thought the lesser of two evils to just not install the parking stall at all and she is in agreement if other Commissioners are.
Dep. Planning Murdock stated that, whenever it is an opportune time, he can follow up on Commissioner Hauser’s request for figures applicable to the adjacent 722 Talbot site and one other HPD related plan.
Chair Nibbelin stated, if okay with Commissioner Ferguson, he would hear from him.
Commissioner Ferguson agreed.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock referred to a public comment and agreed there was a lack of clarity or a discrepancy between the HPD calculations diagram and the project description in terms of a landing for a staircase. He stated, if the Commission advances with this project and makes an approval action, the action to grant the variance is fixed at a limited square footage of coverage and it wouldn’t change that issue as they can clean it up and resolve it at the building permit phase. They would not be able to get extra coverage if that was not included in the calculation and they would need to modify the project to reduce that amount of coverage if the Commission was open to that approach.
Regarding to the 722 Talbot project, and looking at the minutes from the August 2, 2021 public hearing on this project, he indicated that the project was approved in the mid2000s and that site has 0% allowable coverage with an average slope of 43.3% and the project was approved by the Planning Commission for 11.9% coverage or approximately 7,921 sq. feet of coverage. He stated that the request for a variance for the subject project is not out of line with those previous requests, including the 722 Talbot and others he summarized.
Chair Nibbelin thanked him for that information.
Commissioner Ferguson stated he was on vacation during the August meeting and he is coming in halfway through, but he thanked them for the detailed reports. He was not concerned with the constructability standpoint as he thinks you can build a house on the side of a hill, and his only concern was the zoning consideration and preservation of green space, but given that they are talking about parking requirement that he thought they have gone back and forth on, and coverage as it is not out of scale with the other houses on that street and is probably one of the smaller houses. He stated that, given the Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
support of all the comments by people on Talbot, he would be inclined to agree with Vice Chair Berman and would be glad to support the motion in staff’s report.
Commissioner Leal thanked the applicant for providing the renderings, stating that he helped provide the vantage points and was concerned on the one from Milagra and seeing that view of the house blended in with the existing properties. He also supports staff’s recommendation in terms of removing the parking space, as he didn’t think parking has been an issue and he didn’t think they would have an issue with parking with extra guests.
Commissioner Godwin stated that all the concerns he had about the project were covered by the renderings and comments made. He was pleased with the project as currently set up as it is a challenging lot. He agreed that the additional parking space is superfluous.
Chair Nibbelin thought he was inclined to approve it, adding that the additional information and configurations were very good for the project. He appreciated that, although the delay was additional expense and extra trouble, it made for a better project and they were able to address a number of concerns raised by the public. He was in support of the motion and would be aligned with staff’s recommendation as Vice Chair Berman suggested that they go with deleting the parking space and move forward without it.
Commissioner Hauser stated that she was ready to make a motion if they were ready to hear it.
Chair Nibbelin asked that she go ahead.
Commissioner Hauser asked Dep. Planning Director Murdock to remind her if she was making a motion for approval with one or the alternate motion.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that it was the first one.
Commissioner Hauser moved that the Planning Commission adopts the attached resolution to FIND the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; RECOMMEND City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21, described in Exhibit A to the resolution and enactment of the ordinance described in Exhibit B to the resolution to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP79-18; and APPROVE Specific Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18 and Parking Exception PE-191-21 based on the Project Plans, dated September 8, 2021 and included as Attachment E to the Planning Commission staff report except that the approval shall not include the guest parking space in the front yard, and further subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit C of the resolution; and INCORPORATE all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 18, 2022
Chair Nibbelin stated that, having been on the Planning Commission for about seven years, that was probably the longest motion, and he complimented staff on a well done job.
Commissioner Leal seconded the motion.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock took a verbal roll call.
The motion carried 7-0.
Ayes: Commissioners Berman, Domurat, Ferguson,
Godwin, Hauser, Leal and Chair Nibbelin
Noes: None
Chair Nibbelin declared that anyone aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission has ten (10) calendar days to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council.