Pacifica Commission Approves 4,150-Square-Foot Multigenerational Home After Emotional Hearing

Pacifica's Planning Commission unanimously approved a site development permit for a large multigenerational home on Escalero Avenue, the centerpiece of a meeting that also surfaced tensions over how state housing laws collide with the city's coastal zone rules. With Chair Samantha Hauser absent and Zoom knocked out by a storm, Vice Chair Lauren Berman presided over a standing-room-only session where neighbors clashed over building size, family legacy and the character of a quiet residential block.

• 4,150-square-foot multigenerational home at 1212 Escalero approved 5-0 after neighbors split sharply over the project's scale and impact

• Neighbors challenge SB684 lot split at 170 Paloma, arguing a prior occupant bars subdivision — staff rules occupant was not a legal tenant

• Commissioners question why ministerial housing projects require public hearings the commission cannot influence, calling the process misleading

• Three Planning Commission vacancies announced with applications due Feb. 20

• Commissioner Godwin flags inequity between fast-tracked developer projects and yearslong waits for homeowner permits

A Family Promise, a Five-Year Wait and a Divided Block

The longest and most contested item of the night was a site development permit for Dan Kelly, a builder who wants to substantially demolish an existing 1,670-square-foot home at 1212 Escalero Avenue and replace it with an approximately 4,150-square-foot multigenerational dwelling in the R1 zone. The project exceeds the principally permitted floor area by roughly 940 square feet, triggering the permit requirement.

Why it matters: The case put a personal story — a dying wife's wish to house three adult daughters and their families under one roof — against neighbor concerns about a home more than twice the size of anything on the block. It also prompted a broader commissioner debate about whether Pacifica's process treats individual homeowners fairly compared to professional developers.

Where things stand: Kelly told the commission the project was conceived with his late wife, Glenna Kelly, who died of cancer during the five-year design and permitting process. The home is intended to house up to nine family members across three generations. Kristopher McGuire, a veteran-owned construction company representative on the applicant team, and Diane Dittmar also presented on behalf of the project.

Five public commenters spoke in support. Nancy Corrigan, a longtime family friend, vouched for Kelly's construction quality from her commercial real estate experience. Mark, a Pedro Point resident and 30-year Pacifica community member, said the city would benefit from more construction of this caliber. Shirley urged the commission to approve the project to honor Glenna Kelly's wish. Nina Terheyden, the next-door neighbor and 23-year Pacifica resident, described the existing property's history as a former "crack house" with police calls and expressed frustration at years of delay, noting that one of Kelly's daughters is currently paying rent, a mortgage and taxes while waiting for construction to begin.

The other side: John, a neighbor across the street, spoke on behalf of multiple neighbors, arguing the proposed home is unprecedented for the block — the largest existing homes are roughly half the proposed size. He raised concerns about loss of views and natural light, privacy impacts from a towering second story, potential effects on home values, and a year of construction disruption. He asked that the project be scaled back.

His wife, Valerie, a 26-year Escalero resident, added concerns about parking — potentially 11 or 12 people with only a two-car garage — and noted the family would lose their hill views. She expressed empathy for the Kelly family's situation while pointing out that her own daughters also rent in Pacifica and face similar housing challenges.

Commissioner James Godwin pressed staff on whether a smaller project had been discussed with the applicant.

"This seems like a really massive house to me and really inconsistent with the neighborhood," he said.

Deputy Director Michael Christensen responded that the delta between the principally permitted maximum (around 3,500 square feet) and the proposed size (around 4,400 square feet) was about 900 square feet, and that staff found the project met all required site development permit findings.

Commissioner Marjory Davis asked staff to confirm that conditions of approval and best management practices would address a neighbor's written concerns about construction dust and hazardous materials near a newborn. Staff confirmed they would.

Decisions: The commission approved site development permit PSD 86724 unanimously, 5-0 (For: Berman, Ferguson, Godwin, Redfield, Davis; Absent: Hauser; Devine seat vacant), finding the project exempt from CEQA under a Class 3 categorical exemption. Construction is estimated at 12 to 18 months. A 10-day appeal window to the City Council applies.

Neighbors Contest SB684 Lot Split at 170 Paloma

A ministerial SB684 lot subdivision at 170 Paloma Avenue drew pointed objections from two adjacent neighbors before the consent calendar was received and filed.

The basics: SB684 is a relatively new state law allowing ministerial lot subdivisions in multifamily residential zones. The project (file 2025-047) proposes splitting an R2-zoned parcel. Because the site is in the coastal zone and requires a coastal development permit, state law still requires a public hearing — even though the commission has no discretionary authority to deny a qualifying project.

Where things stand: Aaron Gregory, owner of 184 Paloma Avenue, objected that the subdivision would place a 70-foot driveway directly alongside his bedrooms. Both Gregory and Scott Hage of 164 Paloma argued the project is disqualified under Government Code Section 66499.41(a)(8), which bars subdivision of a property occupied by a tenant within the preceding five years. They said the home was occupied until November.

Hage also protested the notification timeline, saying neighbors had effectively only three business days to review the project. He raised concerns about the impact of two 29-foot structures towering over his property and questioned whether a heritage tree on the site had been properly assessed. He asked that the project be postponed.

The other side: A staff member clarified that the prior occupant was not a legal tenant.

"The applicant has provided us enough written evidence to support the required findings that the person who was occupying the unit was not a tenant, it was a personal relationship. The person was not paying rent. There was no written lease," the staff member said.

On the heritage tree, staff confirmed the city arborist identified no heritage trees, though tree removal permits are a condition of approval.

Commissioner Davis flagged an error in the conditions of approval that referenced Terra Nova Boulevard instead of Paloma Avenue. Staff committed to correcting the mistake.

Decisions: The consent calendar — covering the 170 Paloma subdivision and an informational ADU item at 125 Shell Street — was received and filed unanimously, 5-0 (Hauser absent).

State Housing Law Meets Coastal Red Tape

The night's most pointed policy exchange came during commission and staff communications, when commissioners asked why ministerial projects that they cannot modify or deny must still come before them in a public hearing.

Why it matters: Pacifica sits almost entirely within the coastal zone, meaning state-mandated ministerial housing approvals (under SB9 and SB684) still require coastal development permits — and the California Coastal Commission requires a public hearing for CDPs. The result is a proceeding that looks like public input but functions as a rubber stamp, frustrating both commissioners and residents who show up expecting to be heard.

A staff member explained the bind:

"We're not allowed to have any public hearing or public discussion on these ministerial approvals. And because they're in coastal zone, that's why they're even before you, because they require coastal development permit."

Vice Chair Lauren Berman said the setup misleads the public.

"I think it's kind of confusing to the public. When there's a project that comes to a public hearing, there's a false sense of public opportunity to make a change when we can't make any changes," she said, requesting a future agenda item to formally address the issue.

Commissioner Godwin extended the critique to the broader permitting landscape, noting that Dan Kelly's single-family home project took five years while professional developers obtain 60-day ministerial approvals.

"It comes across like we are paving the way for profit developers and getting in the way of local residents that are modifying their single family homes," he said.

Staff noted that a draft SB9 implementing ordinance is in progress and could help clarify these procedural questions. Associate Planner Caitlin Snodgrass briefed the commission on related coastal zone permitting matters.

What's next: Berman's request for a dedicated agenda item on ministerial process reform will likely come before the commission at a future meeting.

Minor Items

• 125 Shell Street ADU — an administrative coastal development permit for an accessory dwelling unit was received and filed as part of the consent calendar (informational item).

• Three Planning Commission vacancies — two full four-year terms (expiring March 2030) and one partial term through March 2027 (following Commissioner Daniella Devine's resignation). Commissioners Ferguson and Godwin have reapplied for their expiring seats. Applications are due Feb. 20 on the city's website; City Council will make appointments.

• New planning applications tracker — Deputy Director Christensen announced the launch of an active planning applications tracker available on the city's website.

• Vice Chair Berman announced the birth of her son, now two months old, marking her return from maternity leave.