RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TP-4-24, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180-SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF ATTACHED
THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EASTNORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Robert Benda and John Spenker (“Owner”) has submitted an application to the City of Pacifica (City) for the construction of a 3,180 square foot (sf) single-family residence with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, an approximately 680-sf and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf, undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the R-1-H Zoning District requires approval of a Site Development Permit prior to issuance of a building permit per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-
4.953, with the objective of ensuring that new structures and streets are designed to protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillsides and to minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Tree Removal Permit per PMC Section 4-12.04, whereby any person who desires to remove a protected tree or City tree shall obtain a tree removal permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2024, which was continued to December 1, 2025.
WHEREAS, in continuing the public hearing for the Project, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant and the City staff to provide additional information on erosion control, drainage, additional renderings and details to the plans, preliminary title report, easement documents, and updated geotechnical reports.
WHEREAS, the Applicant provided the additional information and studies about the Project to City staff in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, after holding a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-017 approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Vera Toth-Fejel on behalf of “Coalition for a Safe Pacifica” (“Appellant”) on December 11, 2025, in opposition to the Planning Commission’s action (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented relating to the Appeal, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on December 1, 2025, and makes the following findings pertaining to its denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the Project:
Appeal Issue No. 1
“The difficulty of developing the lot is a result of choices of the landowner and their predecessors in interest.”
The appeal letter contends that because the original parcel was not created as a flag lot and had its primary frontage on a paper street (Calera Terrace), that limitations on development arise from a 1974 easement granted by prior owners to Lot 5, not from the physical condition of the land. As such, the appellant asserts that any hardship requiring a variance is self-created and that self-induced hardship does not justify exemption from land use regulations or granting variances.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not approve a Variance, nor does the project request or require approval of a variance or an exemption from any applicable land use regulations. The project would meet all applicable objective development standards in the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) that are required for new construction in the Single Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) Zoning District pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.953.
The project site is a flag lot with a 25-foot wide and 120-foot long “flagpole” from Bayview Street to the wider lot area, and has a legal right to access the site from Bayview. Based on the most recent 2023 easement documents, the adjacent property at 171 Bayview Road has revised a landscape easement across a portion of the flagpole area that would allow for the site access to be widened by 6’-0” northward (Attachment G).
See Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9), for discussion of the fire access.
This appeal point is not applicable because the applicant has not requested a variance.
Appeal Issue No. 2
“Five findings for denial were met under the Site Development Permit.” The appeal letter claims that the project meets five of the nine site development permit findings that require denial of the project: PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9).
For detailed findings related to the Site Development Permit, refer to the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025
<https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>. a. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding PMC 9-4.3204(a)(3): “That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.”
The appeal letter claims that the paved driveway is not designed or located in a manner that sufficiently breaks up or softens the visual impact of the hardscape, and that the ADU is not screened from neighboring Lot 16.
Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway: Sufficient landscape areas have been reserved for the project. The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-
4.402(i).The vehicular access is treated as Fire Department access road (see Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9)). The proposed project would provide legal and conforming vehicular access to the housing development project. During review of the planning entitlements, the applicant considered multiple designs for the access, including a planted center strip on the paved driveway and the use of an open-faced block with grass infill (e.g., turf block or Grasscrete), but the designs were not feasible due to the fire access requirements. The applicant worked closely with the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) on access and site design and developed a driveway that meets the applicable fire requirements. The applicant prepared a revised rendering for the appeal that more accurately reflects the proposal and reduced visual impacts of the current design, shown below in Figure 1. To address the neighbors’ concern raised during the public hearing regarding the aesthetics of the driveway, the Planning Commission also added Condition of Approval 43 to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing,” noting that final design approval is outside the Commission’s and City’s purview.
Figure 1. Driveway Rendering
(2.) Accessory Dwelling Unit (Figure 2): Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are required to be processed ministerially pursuant to State law and PMC Section 9-4.451(b), and are not subject to discretionary review, including the site development findings. However, the ADU complies with all applicable objective standards. For example, the minimum rear setback required for an ADU is 4 feet and 20 feet is proposed. The height of the ADU is lower than the existing residence on Lot 16. In addition to compliance of PMC Section 4-12.04(e) for replacement tree plantings, the applicant has provided additional shrubs, vines, and retaining wall plantings between the ADU and Lot 16 to reduce potential privacy and visual impacts.
Figure 2. ADU Height and Landscaping Plan
In conclusion, the design of the driveway is limited by the fire access requirements, and the project has been conditioned to explore additional measures to reduce potential impacts while ensuring life-safety access. Even if the ADU were subject to discretionary findings, which is prohibited by state and local law, the proposed design addresses the concerns raised by the appellant. Further, The project would provide 58 percent of lot area as landscape and vegetated undisturbed areas, where only 20 percent is required, and incorporates trees, shrubs, vines, and other plantings. There is sufficient landscape area reserved for the project. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(4): “That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.”
The appeal letter claims that the proposed layout is inconsistent with the code definitions of front and side lot lines, and that the elevated, paved driveway and retaining wall along the property line with Lot 7 does not comply with required setbacks and its placement would require a variance. Finally, the letter contends that the project’s driveway and placement of the house and ADU would block sunlight and restrict airflow to Lot 7 and Lot 16. The appellant also notes that story poles have not been provided, limiting the ability of neighbors and the Commission to fully assess these impacts.
Staff Response: The front and side lot lines are correctly identified, and the fire access complies with the applicable requirements and is permitted within required setbacks. Further, although light and air impacts are not objective standards, the potential impacts have been minimized to the extent feasible.
The front lot line is the western lot abutting Bay View Road (bottom of the “flagpole”) and the western lot line abutting Lot 7 (bottom of the “flag”). The rear lot line is the eastern lot line, and all other lot lines are sides. The front and side setbacks are properly identified, and the buildings exceed the minimum setbacks, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Lot Lines and Required Setbacks
1: Garages require a 20’ front setback; 34’-3” proposed 2: ADUs have a maximum 4’ rear setback; 20’-3” proposed Although a retaining wall meets the general definition of “structure” (anything constructed on the ground), there are specific provisions in the PMC that address fences, hedges, and walls and establish how they are regulated. PMC Section 9-4.2502 regulates fences, hedges, walls, and screen plantings located within the required setbacks. The applicable code does not impose setback requirements but regulates the height of retaining walls when located in a required setback, to between 3 to 6 feet, unless otherwise required by law. In this case, the retaining walls are required to provide fire access to the site and can exceed the height. Regardless, the fire access was designed with retaining walls that range from approximately 2 to 3 feet along the southern flagpole lot line, with one section of retaining wall at 5 feet in the southwest corner, located well over 30 feet from the house on Lot 7 (Attachment E, Sheet A-4.1 Grading Plan). The retaining walls in the northern portion of the flagpole are outside of the required setbacks. The design, including the slope, is required by law to meet fire access requirements, and the height of the retaining walls within the required setbacks substantially comply with the PMC Section 9-
4.2503. Further, there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways or driveways.
Although light and air impacts are not an objective standard, the increased setbacks from property lines would minimize potential light and air impacts to surrounding properties more so than a project built to maximize the allowances for this district. The proposed residential use is consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing.
This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
c. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(6): “That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site.”
The appeal letter claims that the grading work will damage the natural grade of the site.
Staff Response: The project does not damage or destroy natural features and has been designed to meet standards for fire access while minimizing grading and preserving the natural slope to the greatest extent feasible, in coordination with NCFA. The development is set back on the hillside and incorporates a series of retaining walls supporting cuts from the north to south and containing fill for terraces to the south, facilitating construction of the residence and associated improvements. Landscaping beyond minimum requirements is proposed to integrate the buildings with the natural environment.
The overall site and building designs follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible and reduce excavation requirements. The project balances the need for fire access and site development with efforts to preserve natural features and the site’s existing grade, consistent with the PMC requirements and intent of the Design Standards. For additional analysis on this Finding, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>. The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) conclude that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint upon implementation of the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports, which are to be incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction, per Condition 17 of the project. The project does not damage or destroy natural features and thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
d. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(8): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.”
The appeal letter states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ’Citys adopted Design Guidelines <https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2394/637838931965700000>, including A.2 Building Location, B.2 Scale, B.6 Privacy, and C.6 Parking Areas.
Staff Response: The project responds appropriately to the City’s Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning regulations, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. They address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and still be consistent. While the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reduces the density of a “housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. As the project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, the Council’s discretion regarding subjective standards from the Guidelines is governed by the Housing Accountability Act.
The project incorporates design features that reduce the perceived mass and integrate the project with surrounding homes while preserving views, privacy, and solar access to the greatest extent possible. The applicant has also worked extensively with NCFA to design the vehicular and fire access. For additional analysis on compliance with the Design Guidelines, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report
<https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>.
The project has responded to the Design Guidelines and complies with all applicable objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, setbacks, lot coverage, and offstreet parking, as well as ADU standards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
e. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.” The appeal letter raises three points under this criterion. First, that the proposed driveway does not comply with PMC Section 9-4.2813(i), which limits the width of driveways on lots with 50 feet or more of frontage to 50 percent of the frontage. Second, that the proposed driveway does not comply with a minimum 20-foot-wide driveway for emergency vehicle access required by the California Fire Code because the an18-foot wide driveway is proposed, and the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for a variance. Third, the appellant references the seismic and geologic hazards identified in the Safety Element of the General Plan and states that the project is inconsistent with the guiding policies related to landslides, liquefaction, erosion, and natural drainage.
Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway width: The vehicular access is consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2813(e)(1), which requires that when any portion of an exterior wall is located more than 150 feet from Fire Department vehicle access, the driveway must comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code. The vehicular access for the project is a Fire Department access roadway, subject to the standards of fire code. The project’s driveway complies with both the fire access requirements and with the residential driveways standards that allow driveways between 10 feet to 20 feet in width (see PMC Section 9-4.2813(e)).
Further, the code provision noted in the appeal would not apply to this site because the lot frontage is only 25 feet and does not exceed 50 feet. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met. (2.) Fire Access: The proposed fire access is 18 feet wide, whereas 20 feet is the standard pursuant to the Fire Code. The applicant worked with NCFA and the proposed design was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal as an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR). This allows for an 18-foot-wide driveway and fire apparatus turnaround based on site-specific conditions and compliance with applicable fire safety standards. As the NCFA has approved the access and on-site turnaround to meet the fire access requirements, staff relies on the Fire Marshal’s determination that the approved driveway configuration provides adequate emergency vehicle access for the project. See Condition of Approval No. 36 (Attachment A, Exhibit A). Variances are only applicable to the Zoning Ordinance and are not applied to other codes and regulations. NCFA has approved an AMMR for the width of the access and a turnaround, in compliance with the applicable regulations. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
(3.) Geologic Hazards: The applicant originally submitted a geotechnical report, prepared in 2011, concluding that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint (Attachment F). Following a request from the Planning Commission to further evaluate the previously prepared report, the applicant retained another firm in 2024 to review the initial geotechnical report and to conduct a new investigation, including borings and recommendations for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and drainage (Attachment G). Both geotechnical investigations concluded that the project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
In conclusion, the driveway / fire access complies with applicable requirements, and geotechnical investigations conclude that project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards, therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
Appeal Issue No.3
“The Project was not in compliance with public notice requirements.” The appeal letter states that the public hearing notices for the December 1, 2025, Planning Commission hearing were mailed after the post marked date of November 20, 2025. It states that residents did not start receiving the notices until November 28, 2025, and contends that the City therefore did not comply with the required 10-day noticing period. The appellant further argues that the notices were received after the Thanksgiving holiday, when people may have been out of town, and that mailing notices immediately prior to the holiday failed to meet the spirit of the noticing requirement.
Staff Response: Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3203, the City must publish hearing notices in a newspaper of general circulation and mailing notices not less than 10 days prior to the hearing date to the owners and residents of property within a 500 foot-radius of the project site. It also states that “the failure of any person to receive such notice shall not invalidate the site development permit proceedings.” The City published notice in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 21, 2025, and mailed notices on November 20, 2025, as postmarked. While the appellant does not explicitly accuse the City of falsifying the postage meter or drop off date, the City disputes any implication, direct or indirect, that mailing dates were falsified, and maintains that the notices were handled accurately and in accordance with standard practice on November 20, 2025, which was 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City has no control over the processing, handling, or delivery of notices once they are provided to the USPS, nor is it reasonable to expect delivery that aligns with an individual’s travel plans.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
Appeal Issue No. 4
“Violation of the Brown Act”
The appeal letter states that the Planning Commission violated the Brown Act by relying on supplemental materials distributed after agenda publication, specifically, the 2023 easement granted by the subject site to a neighboring lot. The appellant states that nearby residents were not able to adequately consider the materials, seek independent review, provide feedback, and prepare questions and comments for the December 1 meeting, and that the Commission cannot rush through a controversial, unusual, and unsafe development without at least providing nearby residents and interested parties with adequate notice and information.
Staff Response: The Brown Act requires that an initial staff report or similar document containing an executive summary and the staff recommendation, if any, relating to that agenda item is made available for public inspection at the office or location posted at least 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting, and that agenda items be described with sufficient specificity to inform the public of the business to be conducted. The initial staff report and agenda was published online on November 26, 2025, at 2:29 PM, approximately 124 hours prior to the meeting. Further, the Brown Act does not prohibit the distribution of supplemental materials following agenda posting but requires that it be made available for public inspection at the time of distribution. At the meeting, printed copies of the easement were provided to the Commissioners, included in the publicly available agenda binder, and copies were available at the table with the extra agendas. In addition to the easement being made publicly available at the time of distribution to the Commission on December 1, 2025, it was also previously included as a publicly available supplemental exhibit attached to the Planning Commission staff report for the April 1, 2024, hearing <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1524&Inline=True>. As such, the Planning Commission complied with the Brown Act and no violation occurred.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
Appeal Issue No 5
“Project not in Compliance with Setback Requirements.”
The appeal letter restates Appeal Point No. 2 regarding the setback requirements for retaining walls.
Staff Response: As noted under Appeal Point No. 2, Exclusion Criterion 9-4.3204(a)(4), there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways, driveways, or retaining walls.
Appeal Point No. 6
“Other Grounds for Appeal”
The appeal letter raises six sub-issues under this point. a. Failure to Consider or Pursue Alternatives. The Planning Commission failed to further investigate project design alternatives such as developing the paper street Calera Terrace.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission has purview over discretionary permits for “private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes.” Developing Calera Terrace to provide frontage for the project would constitute a substantially different project and was not part of the proposed project. Neither state law nor the City’s established development review standards require consideration of project alternatives for discretionary projects that are exempt from environmental review. An environmental impact report (EIR) must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)), but there is no such requirement to evaluate project alternatives where a project is exempt from CEQA review. Even if the Planning Commission were to have considered such an alternative, it would involve significant construction and grading beyond what is required for the proposed single-family residence, resulting in additional impacts, including disruption to neighboring properties and immediate area. The current proposal represents a less impactful development approach.
This appeal point is not applicable because consideration of a project alternative is not required.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Inconsistency with Plans and Rendering. There appear to be significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s architectural plans and renderings, such as with respect to height and placement of the proposed house. Without accurate rendering and story poles, neither nearby residents nor the Commission or its staff could accurately gauge, analyze, or provide feedback on what exactly applicant propose to build.
Staff Response: The City does not require story poles for any development projects, as reflected in the state-mandated application submittal checklist. As discussed above under Appeal Point No. 2(b) and shown in Figure 1, the applicant has provided a more accurate rendering of the driveway. The two other renderings showing the building from the southwest (Bay View Road) and northwest (Rockaway) appear accurate in both height and placement. Further, even if the renderings were inaccurate, the proposed project meets all applicable objective development standards, including height, and the placement of the proposed house would comply with setbacks, exceeding the requirements from all lot lines.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(c) Inconsistency with Size and Scale of the Home. The size of the project is substantially larger than the surrounding homes.
Staff Response: As previously discussed, the subject property is larger than surrounding lots - over 26,000 square feet where 5,000 square feet is the minimum lot area, allowing the proposed building to meet zoning standards while maintaining appropriate scale relative to the site. Based on compliance with these objective standards established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the lot size, the proposed building’s height, bulk and mass, and location are appropriate for the project site. This issue is adequately addressed by local and State law. Further, cursory calculations based on review of Google Earth images and Zillow, the lot coverage on neighboring properties averages approximately 22 percent. The proposed project would have a lot coverage of approximately 15 percent (excluding the ADU pursuant to PMC Section 9-
4.453(c)(5)), which is comparable to neighboring sites. Additionally, there are other properties zoned R1-H in the area that have been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for houses with similar floor area, including a project known as “Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way” for a 3,800 square foot singlefamily residence on a vacant lot.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(d.) Neighbor Access Required for Construction. The Planning Commission did not consider how the applicant plans to build without access to neighbor’s property.
Staff Response: The construction of the proposed project will not involve accessing or encroaching the adjacent neighbor’s lots, which will be verified through building permit review. This issue is adequately addressed by governing building codes during construction permit review and legally permitted construction activities.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(e.) Inadequate Analysis by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not analyze the increase in heavy construction vehicle traffic on Bayview Road and surrounding streets. This will result in degradation of road quality and the blocking of a one-lane road used for ingress, egress (including for safety and emergency vehicles) and evacuation of residents in the case of fire or earthquake.
Staff Response: The City has a standard requirements related to construction vehicles based on the amount of grading. This would be required to be implemented for this project and have been incorporated as Condition of Approval No. 35. These include a requirement for prior approval of any lane closures from Public Works, coordination with the Pacifica Police and Fire departments and Recology, and written notice to affected properties. The standard Traffic Control Plan requirements adequately address ingress, egress, and evacuation during construction. This issue was adequately addressed by Planning Commission, as well as in local regulations.
Further, the Planning Commission added Condition of Approval No. 42 which requires the applicant to submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing conditions of all public improvement for Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, to ensure restoration of any construction-related damage.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(f.) Additional Information on Security or Bond. The Planning Commission should have provided more information or a formula for calculating the security for nearby residents have adequate assurance that construction will be completed safely and any potential damage will be addressed.
Staff Response: The form and amount of any security or bond are determined by the City Engineer in accordance with standard practice, tailored to the scope and potential impacts of construction. The Planning Commission cannot specify these details, as it is not within their purview. In order to address community concerns, Condition of Approval 45 was added to ensure that construction of retaining walls and other related improvements would be completed should the project be abandoned mid-way, while providing appropriate oversight by the City Engineer. This appeal point was adequately addressed by Planning Commission.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
Appeal Issue No. 7
“The project description is inadequate under California Environmental Quality Act.” The appeal letter claims that the project description for analyzing compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not stable or consistent because it had changed over time, including the addition of conditions of approval 41-45 introduced by the Planning Commission at their meeting on December 1, 2025. The appeal letter claims that as a result, input from the public and review by the Planning Commission was inadequate.
Staff Response: Under CEQA, a project description should contain a “general description” of the project’s “main features,” and other information sufficient to foster a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts.
While a project description must be stable and consistent throughout the document, a requirement for a consistent project description does not mean that the project cannot change as it proceeds through CEQA review and other stages in the approval process. The project description should allow for the flexibility needed to respond to unforeseeable events and changing conditions that could affect the project’s final design. A lead agency may also approve changes to a project without revising the project description if such changes do not result in increased environmental impacts.
Here, the project description’s “main features” have been stable throughout the development process, including at the time of staff review and analysis and at the time of Planning Commission review and action. At all times, the project has consisted of a single-family residence, an attached garage, and an ADU. Any project changes have been minor and have not impaired a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts. The project remains consistent with the project description, as discussed in further detail under Appeal Point No. 8, because it has not changed for purposes of CEQA or project review. The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission have not fundamentally changed the project and have not caused the project to be removed from the scope of CEQA exemption or result in any significant environmental impacts. No mitigation measures have been imposed, as further discussed under Appeal Point No. 8. The Planning Commission relied on the accurate project description for determining the CEQA categorical exemption.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
Appeal Issue No. 8
“The project is not exempt from California Environmental Quality Act” The appeal letter claims three reasons that the project is not eligible for a categorical exemption from CEQA and that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact is required. a. Conditions of Approval: The appeal letter claims that the Planning Commission improperly relied on conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, as mitigation measures to support a categorical exemption. The appellant claims that the Conditions of Approval added by the Commission at the public hearing were actually mitigation measures, and the Planning Commission improperly relied on to apply CEQA Categorical Exemption to the project.
Staff Response: They conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission were not mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts. As explained in detail below, the majority of these conditions were added to allay public concerns and provide additional assurances to ensure that the Project complies with already applicable state and local regulations or the standards City conditions for a development Project. Regulations of general applicability that will prevent a significant impact from occurring (and conditions of approval requiring compliance with such regulations) are not treated as mitigation measures. Similarly, a feature built into the design or operation of a project is not treated as a mitigation measure that would preclude a categorical exemption.
The conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, do not constitute mitigation measures and are unrelated to the Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” Categorical Exemption from CEQA. The conditions of approval are intended to ensure compliance with regulations of general applicability, such as standard requirements in the PMC, state law, and other regulatory requirements. Discussed below are the challenged conditions and staff’s analysis confirming they are not mitigation measures.
Condition 41 states:
• Condition 41. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm. The detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows.
Staff Response: This condition was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. Rather, this condition was included in response to public concerns raised at the Commission hearing requiring an additional method for the project to demonstrate that the Project’s design for stormwater management is complying with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requirements (Chapter 12 of the PMC) and other regulatory requirements (e.g. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Under the NPDES permit requirements, the Project is already required to be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm, and a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate that effectiveness of the project’s design to meet this regulatory requirement is a standard engineering stormwater detention requirement applied for all single-family residential building permits Condition 42 states:
• Condition 42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a preconstruction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all public improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.
Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition requires documentation of existing site and public improvements to assign responsibility in the event of any project-related damage to public improvements. The project is not expected to damage public improvements. It is a condition to implement some of the PMC provisions that make the project applicant responsible for any damages or work done within public improvements, should they occur, and is not a mitigation measure.
Condition 43 states:
• Condition 43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.
Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition was imposed to address community concerns, and memorializes staff’s commitment to seek additional options to create a more visually appealing driveway while also meeting fire access requirements as determined by NCFA. The Commission noted that final design approval of the driveway was highly subjective and was “more aesthetically pleasing”. As the City’s subjective imposition of driveway design condition of approval was for aesthetic purposes and there is not evidence that there are aesthetic impacts under CEQA. As a result, the condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will result in aesthetic impacts; argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated lay opinion do not constitute substantial evidence. Because there is no evidence of aesthetic impacts under CEQA, this condition of approval is not intended to “reduce” any environmental impact. For all of these reasons, Condition 43 is not a mitigation measure. Condition 44 states:
• Condition 44. The Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices for dust control prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. While there were general concerns raised during the public hearing about construction dust, neither the appeal nor the public comments provide any substantial evidence in the record that the project construction will result in significant construction air quality impacts. Further, this condition merely reiterates the requirements that dust is controlled during construction in accordance with Bay Area Air District best management practices, which are standard conditions and regulations of general applicability. These standards would be required for any grading activities and reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to grading permit issuance. Therefore, Condition 44 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.
Condition 45 states:
• Condition 45. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition relates to a financial mechanism (improvement agreement for a security amount) to ensure that certain improvements which are already proposed as part of the project design are completed if the project is abandoned mid-way.
The improvements themselves are project design features, not mitigation measures. Further, Condition 45 is intended to ensure that the project is constructed in compliance with applicable standards. .
Accordingly, Condition 45 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA. b. Class 3 Categorical Exemption. “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” does not apply to the project because it is comprised of a large single-family residence, ADU, three-car garage, retaining walls, elevated driveway, and grading.
Staff Response: The Class 3 exemption applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303). Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to… “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (Ibid.) There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption.
The appellant selectively quotes the first example, omitting the provision allowing up to three singlefamily residences in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is defined, in part, as: (a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons; [or] (2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons (Pub. Resources Code § 21071). Per the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of the City of Pacifica is 38,640, and the populations of its contiguous neighboring cities of Daly City and South San Francisco are 104,901 and 66,105, respectively. The City of Pacifica is an urbanized area because it is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people.
Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. Here, the Project’s construction of one single-family residence, an ADU, and a garage is a lesser intensity of development than three single-family residences and thus cannot be expected to have greater environmental impacts than three single-family residences.
The Project clearly falls under the Class 3 exemption.
Furthermore, the second referenced example refers to accessory structures, in the plural. Here, the accessory dwelling unit and garage are accessory structures that can be built under the Class 3 exemption. c. Project size, steep topography, flag-lot location, and proximity to neighbors constitute “unusual circumstances” under CEQA.
Staff Response: Further, the exception for “unusual circumstances” does not apply. This exception applies where, due to “unusual circumstances,” there is a “reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)). A claim that this exception applies can be proven in only two ways: (1) by showing both that the project is unusual and that there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the project’s unusual circumstances; or (2) by showing that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
“[U]nusual circumstances are those that (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the particular categorical exemption and (ii) create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects.” “[W]hether a circumstance is ‘unusual’ is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.” Unusual circumstances are generally found on the basis of “some feature of the project that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class,” which can sometimes be on the basis of its size or location.
As discussed above in Staff Response (b), the project proposes a single-family residence, a garage, and an ADU, which is exactly the kind of development contemplated by the CEQA Class 3 exemption, as evidenced by the enumerated examples in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 language, so it cannot be distinguished from others in the exempt class. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.951, the R-1-H zone regulates development of “certain hillside areas” and “allow[s] residential development compatible with the slope limitations of the development site” and consistent with the Pacifica Design Guidelines.
The applicant provided two geotechnical investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the proposed project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, and drainage.
By contrast, the appellant and other public commenters have raised only generalized concerns and unsubstantiated opinions that Project creates geological risks, which do not present substantial evidence that unusual circumstances exist here, nor substantial evidence of any impacts due to unusual circumstances. These concerns raised by the Appellant are “normal and common considerations in the construction of a single-family residence”, and are not evidence of unusual circumstances. Further, the courts have generally rejected such size and location arguments presenting unusual circumstances in the case of single-family homes, as the appellant is raising here for this project. Thus, the appellants fail to provide substantial evidence that the project includes unusual circumstances or that the project will result in significant impacts to remove the project from the scope of the Class 3 CEQA exemption.
In conclusion, mitigation measures have not been included, the project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, and there is no evidence that the Project itself presents unusual circumstances. Thus, the analysis on the application of the unusual circumstances exception would need to end there under the applicable law. The City cannot require an Initial Study if the project is found to be categorically exempt and the exceptions to the exemption do not apply. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15063; see also Pub.
Resources Code § 21080(a), (c)). This appeal point was adequately addressed by the Planning Commission.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub.
Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to the Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15303). CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 applies to the Project as described below:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 states that Class 3 applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to . . . “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303.)
The City Council finds that the Project fits within the scope of the Class 3 exemption because it involves the construction of a single-family residence and accessory structures in a residential zoning district (R-1-H). There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption. The City Council finds that the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21071, because the City is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people. Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. This Project would only involve the construction of one single-family residence.
Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Additionally, the City Council finds that none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the Project, as described below:
• Location (§ 15300.2(a)): There is no evidence in the record that the Project will impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. The Project site is located within a substantially developed residential neighborhood and is not located in a sensitive environmental area. Therefore, the “location” exception is not applicable.
• Cumulative Impacts (§ 15300.2(b)): There is no evidence in the record that successive projects of the same type in the area would have a cumulatively significant environmental impact. The Project proposes residential development, in accordance with the General Plan, within a substantially developed residential neighborhood. Staff is aware of no evidence of impending development of other similar projects in the area that would have a significant impact on the environment, either alone or cumulatively with other projects in the vicinity.
• Unusual Circumstances (§ 15300.2(c)): There is no evidence in the record that the Project (1) involves unusual circumstances or (2) may have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Project does not differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the Class 3 categorical exemption and the Project does not create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. Because the City is an urbanized area, the Class 3 exemption would allow construction of three single-family residences; the Project consists of one single-family residence and associated accessory structures, and is therefore a lesser intensity of development than allowed under the Class 3 exemption. The Project site is zoned and designated for residential use, and the hillside development pattern is consistent with the surrounding development. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage, etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. There is no evidence to indicate the site has any value to protected species. The applicant provided two geotechnical reports (Attachment F and Attachment G) of the staff report) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the Project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, or drainage. By contrast, the Appellant and other public commenters have raised just generalized concerns and unsubstantiated lay opinions that Project creates geological risks, which do not present substantial evidence that unusual circumstances exist here, nor substantial evidence of any impacts due to unusual circumstances. As such, there are no identifiable unusual circumstances and no evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. There is also no evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Therefore, the “unusual circumstances” exception does not apply. • Scenic Highways, Hazardous Waste Sites, Historical Resources (§ 15300.2(d)-(f)): The Project is not proposed near a designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the exceptions in subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.
Because substantial evidence in the record shows that the Project is consistent with the requirements of a Class 3 exemption, and none of the exceptions to applying a categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, the City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby finds that none of the negative findings under PMC Section 9-4.3204(a) can be made with respect pertaining to Site Development Permit PSD-838-18, and hereby makes the following findings:
1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood; The Project would not substantially increase traffic since only one single-family residence and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) are proposed, and because the Project site is located in an area of established residences. The Project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence, which meets the PMC requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family residence and one guest parking space. The Project will provide adequate emergency vehicle access through provision of an on-site emergency vehicle turnaround. The proposed 18’-0” access driveway from Bay View Road does not meet the 20’-0” standard width required for emergency vehicle access pursuant to the California Fire Code (CFC). However, the design has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) given the project site’s limitations, including limited space from Bay View Road for access to the site and lack of any other feasible access route. The 18’-0” width of the access driveway is the widest access point that can be obtained in light of an existing landscaping easement on the applicant’s property. The proposed development will not affect or impede alternative transportation modes. On balance, the location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.
1. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses;
The Project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence. The parking spaces are accessible via the driveway from Bay View Road to the proposed residence. The proposed driveway is designed with approximately 12 feet of separation from the neighboring driveway to the north. The circulation and access aspects of the project, including ingress/egress between Bay View Road and the project site via the proposed driveway have undergone review and approval by the City's Engineering Division staff to ensure safe operations. Additionally, Bay View Road will be maintained and repaired as per the Engineering conditions of approval.
The three-car garage parking spaces meet the PMC requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family residence and one guest parking space, fulfilling the off-street parking requirements for the proposed development. The single-family residence proposed is not expected to significantly increase traffic on Bay View Road, which serves as the access route to the development. Moreover, 11 other single-family residences use Bay View Road for access with similar driveway configurations.
Therefore, the Project will not create any hazardous or inconvenient conditions for adjacent or surrounding uses with respect to the accessibility of off-street parking and the relationship of off-street parking area to traffic.
2. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas; The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-4.402(i). This extensive landscaping plan incorporates a variety of plantings such as shrubs, ground covers, grasses, and trees. Specifically, plantings along the driveway and near retaining walls are strategically placed to break up and soften the visual impact of these hardscape elements. The selection of small and large broadleaf trees aims to screen the proposed development from neighboring residential properties. A detailed landscape plan, including information on the full spread and height of the plantings, will be finalized during the building permit stage to ensure effective screening.
To address concerns from neighbors’ regarding the visual impacts of the driveway design, Condition of Approval 43 was added by the Planning Commission to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing”, noting that that final design approval for the driveway is outside the City’s purview.
As such, as conditioned, the project’s landscaping will provide adequate screening and relief from hardscaping and paved surfaces.
1. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof;
The project entails the development of an approximately 3,180-square foot (sf) single-family residence, along with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot.
The placement of the buildings on this relatively spacious site allows for setbacks from all property lines that exceed the minimum requirements for the single-family residence. The proposed development is located on significantly higher ground than the nearest residences along Rockaway Beach Avenue to the south. However, the proposed residence will set back a minimum of 15 feet-6 inches at its southeastern corner with its taller, two-story portions setback further behind. The setbacks from common property line of the proposed buildings will ensure that there are no light and air impacts to surrounding properties, including those that are not developed at present. Structures such as retaining walls, driveway, fence and hedges are not subject to setback requirements pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2502. The proposed singlefamily residence is a use consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing. This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value.
As such, the project is planned in a way that does not unreasonably restrict or obstruct light and air on the property or neighboring properties, nor does it hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood or diminish their value.
2. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area; The proposed development is a residential project and no improvements to any commercial or industrial structures are proposed. Therefore, this finding is inapplicable to the subject project.
3. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code; The project site is currently undeveloped and covered with vegetation, including thick brush, bushes, and scattered trees. Four of the trees are either within the project site or within 50 feet of the construction limits. Two of these trees, both Monterey Pines, are protected trees, per PMC Section 4-12.02(n). One of these protected trees is proposed for removal to facilitate the proposed development on the project site, in addition to a dead, 10-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Monterey Pine tree and another 8-inch DBH tree of the same species. Removal of the two healthy trees will require four new tree plantings of the same species at a replacement ratio of 2:1, per PMC Section 4-12.04(e).
The Project arborist report, titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis (Attachment F) of the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025 <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>), recommends a Tree Protection Plan for all trees, including trees on neighboring properties that are six or more DBH in size and located within the proposed project site and fifty (50’) feet of within project’s limits of disturbance, in accordance with PMC. The recommendations in this report have been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The Project arborist report will be updated with the description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities, in accordance with PMC Section 4-12.11(c)(3), prior to issuance of the building permit, as set forth in the conditions of approval of this project.
The other potentially significant natural feature is the natural grade present on the site. The steeply sloping topography of the Project site presents significant challenges to minimizing excavation. The Project proposes extensive retaining walls on the north and the southern side of the Project site with a retaining wall east of the ADU, as part of development on the Project site. However, the overall site and building design follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible. The Project’s site plan, largely driven by the site access requirements for fire safety, locates the Project’s driveway on the relatively less steep northern portion of the project site with the building footprint configured to accommodate the shape of the hammerhead required for fire truck access. The proposed buildings are located along the contours with access to the residence on the upper level on higher ground with the lower level below setback into the hillside. These features of the site and building design serve to reduce excavation and, thus minimize adverse impacts to the natural topography.
The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations conclude that the Project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports are incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction. Condition of Approval 30 has been included to ensure recommendations proposed in the geotechnical reports are incorporated within the final Project plans prior to the issuance of the building permit.
As such, as conditioned, the project will not excessively damage or destroy the natural features of the site.
4. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance;
As earlier indicated, the Spanish revival style of the residence blends several architectural elements such as varied roof profiles, balconies, and curves and arches for window and door openings. These elements along with the complementary colors and materials associated with the Spanish Revival style, such as red terracotta tiles for the roofs, brown wood-framed windows and roof shelves, and white stucco for the exterior walls ensure a visually interesting and harmonious design that avoids monotony.
The facades of the residence display complementary variety, exhibiting similarity in colors and materials while varying the size, shape, and treatment of windows. Large curved and arched windows and door elements on the northern and southern facades, coupled with square windows on the sides, introduce variety to the design.
Overall, the combination of diverse architectural treatments and articulations, along with the variety of plant materials used in landscaping, ensures that the external appearance of the proposed buildings exhibits sufficient variety and avoids any sense of monotony.
5. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines; or The proposed project has achieved consistency with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as follows:
• Site Planning
Screening: Exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, landing docks and ramps, electrical utility boxes, etc., should be screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with building and site design. Such facilities should be conveniently located, but must not interfere with the circulation and parking on the site.
As earlier mentioned, all service and storage areas would be located within the building interior and screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures, with no visual impact or interference with parking and circulation on the Project site. • Building Design
Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged.
Details. Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale. Wall insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the scale of larger buildings.
Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.
Privacy. Consideration should be given to the impact of development on the privacy of surrounding properties. Use judicious window placement and appropriate landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of privacy.
Consistency: There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations.
The proposed project complies with the objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, bulk, mass, and lot coverage, and all of the buildings exceed the minimum setbacks. As mentioned earlier, the proposed residence is articulated in the Spanish Revival architectural style to include curves and arches above window and door openings on both the southern and northern facades.
The southern façade also includes lower and upper-level balconies with wood railings that extend to the western façade. The overall mass of the building is tempered with varied wall planes between the upper and lower levels that are visible from the south and offsets visible from the west and the north. The wall planes on the east are broken by the distance between the primary residence and the ADU that is located to the north of the residence.
The above-mentioned features and the varied roof profiles of both buildings serve to scale down the development consistent with the surrounding residences of smaller footprints and mass. This effect is more notable on the south side that faces the residential development downslope. The proposed materials, including terracotta tiles for the roofs, wood railings and frames for the balconies, and stucco for exterior walls, align with the Spanish Revival style of the buildings and bring seamless consistency among all facades of the buildings.
The proposed site plan allows for relatively deep setbacks from all property lines and trees would be strategically planted in accordance with the final landscape plan to screen the proposed development that would minimize privacy impacts to surrounding residences. Additionally, the proposed design accounts for the neighbors’ expressed concern regarding privacy in not pursuing the alternative that placed the building closer to the project site’s southern boundary and lower on the hillside.
Therefore, on balance, the Project design is consistent with this design guideline. • Hillside Development
Excavation. Large amounts of cut and/or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. (a) Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it. (b) Whenever feasible, buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
(c) Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
(d) Avoid one-level solutions which would result in excessive lot coverage and more disruption of the site. Multi-level structures which step down the slope can help to minimize cut and fill.
As previously discussed, the steeply sloping topography of the project site presents significant challenges for minimizing excavation that has required extensive retaining walls on the northern and the southern side of the Project site as well as a retaining wall east of the accessary dwelling unit. However, the overall site and building design follows the northeast to southeast downward slope of the site with a step-down design to the south integrating the buildings with the surrounding terrain. The access driveway and emergency vehicle turnaround have also been designed to relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it, by placing them at the flatter portions of the upper site. Additionally, the placement of the proposed buildings is such that the longer facades are aligned with the direction of the existing contours. Therefore, on balance, the Project design is consistent with this design guideline.
2. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.
The land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (LDR) per the 2040 General Plan.
The LDR land use designation allows for the development of three to nine dwelling units per gross acre.
The resulting density of the proposed Project is 3.3 units per acre, based on the proposal for two dwelling units (comprised of a primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit) on a 0.598-acre site. Therefore, the density of the proposed development is consistent with that of the LDR designation. Additionally, the proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the primary intended use in LDR designation of the General Plan.
The Project is also consistent with the development standards of the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) zoning district. Specifically, the height, setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking, and other applicable development standards of the R-1-H zoning district as further detailed in the staff report.
Further, the Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies that include, but are not limited to, the following:
Community Design Element:
Policy CD-I-11. Minimize Visual Impacts of Hillside Development. Require new development to employ innovative site planning, engineering and design techniques that:
• Seek first to avoid impacts to scenic resources through site planning and design; • Minimize grading and conform with natural landforms to the greatest extent possible; • Design structures so that they follow contours and limit their downslope exposure; and • Use landscaping to screen and integrate buildings with the natural environment.
Policy CD-I-14. Design Review. Continue to use Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed projects in Planned Development, Hillside Development, and Special districts.
Land Use Element
Policy LU-I-5. Density Ranges. Ensure that development is permitted within the allowable density range for the applicable land use designations.
Circulation Element
Policy CI-I-22. Improvements for Existing Facilities. Maintain and upgrade local streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other City infrastructure in a manner that prevents deterioration and corrects existing deficiencies.
Housing Element
HE-G-1. Maintain, Improve, and Develop Housing: Encourage the development and retention of housing in a variety of types for all income levels with priority given to low-income households and projects that foster sustainable urban development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby makes the following findings pertaining to Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24:
(a) The condition of the tree, presence of disease, pest infestation, damage, public nuisance, risk, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and/or interference with utility services.
The protected tree to be removed, as identified above, is in close proximity to a retaining wall necessary to allow for the construction of the hammerhead portion of the Project driveway, which is necessary for the required fire truck access to the site. Given the proximity of the subject tree to proposed construction including structures, the removal of this tree is necessary. Removal of this tree is also justified, as it will not survive the impact to its root zone because of the grading and construction associated with the proposed site improvements as described above. (b) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.
The subject tree removal is necessary to facilitate the construction of the hammerhead portion of the Project’s driveway that is essential for fire truck access to the development. The Project’s driveway is located in the only feasible location on the project site, given the limitations of slope and site access from public street. In the absence of such access, the Project site cannot be developed, thus depriving the owner of economically viable use of the property.
(c) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it.
The Project includes geotechnical evaluation, as incorporated in Attachment F and Attachment G to the staff report, that evaluated slope stability. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the Project could be constructed safely, subject to the recommendations in the report, including those pertaining to removal of trees.
(d) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.
As noted above, removal of the subject protected tree would facilitate the fire access necessary for the development of the Project site, thereby promoting health, safety, and general welfare of the area, and by extension, the City as a whole. The planting of required replacement trees would be located in accordance with the final landscape plan that would be reviewed and approved by City staff, ensuring that such plantings contribute to the scenic beauty associated with trees on the project site. Removal of one protected tree in relation to the large size of the Project site would not result in adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, or historic value on the Project site or immediate surroundings.
(e) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support.
The Project site is 26,055 square feet in size, which is adequate to ensure that the two replacement trees required for mitigation of the removal of the subject protected tree can be installed and maintained on the project site healthfully.
Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the criteria for approval of a tree removal permit to remove one protected tree have been met by the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council of the City of Pacifica approves Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this resolution, and finds the Project exempt from CEQA.
* * * * *
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 9th day of February 2026.
AYES, Councilmember: N/A
NOES, Councilmember: N/A
ABSENT, Councilmember: N/A
ABSTAIN, Councilmember: N/A
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Exhibit A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TP-4-24 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180-SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550) City Council Meeting of February 9, 2026
Planning Division of the Community Development Department
1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “Benda-Spenker Residence,” prepared December 3, 2018, last revised October 21, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.
2. Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 is valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Community Development Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Community Development Director may administratively grant a single, one-year extension provided, in the their sole discretion, if the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed.
Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one-year extension.
3. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all applicable conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit plans that include an update to the project data table on the Cover Page, accurately depicting the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) development standards and correcting the error in the proposed lot coverage (lot area covered by the proposed structures) mentioned.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a detailed on-site exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Said plan shall indicate fixture design, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residences. Buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to residences shall be required. Building lighting shall be architecturally integrated with the building style, materials and colors and shall be designed to minimize glare. Show fixture locations, where applicable, on all building elevations.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Community Development Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size at maturity, and location of plant materials, including the location of the four replacement Monterey Pine trees (or other acceptable species as approved by the City Arborist) in lieu of the two Monterey Pine trees removed (2:1 replacement ratio) for Project construction, as well as the irrigation system.
The four replacement trees shall be planted south of the proposed residence and serve to screen the development from downhill residential properties along Rockaway Beach Avenue. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced, when necessary, as determined by the Community Development Director.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a completed Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) checklist demonstrating compliance with the MWELO water efficiency standards for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit an updated Project arborist report for review and approval by the City Arborist that, in addition to the tree protection plan included in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis, includes the following:
a. A description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities; b. Plan for tree replacement at 2:1 ratio for the proposed tree removal, as described in Condition of Approval No. 7; and
c. Correct the error in the identification as a protected tree of Tree #12, labeled as Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , all transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berming, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a roof plan with spot elevations showing the location of all roof equipment including vents, stacks and skylights. All roof equipment shall be screened to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.
12. All permanent mechanical equipment, such as motors, compressors, pumps, and compactors, which is determined by the Building Official to be a source of structural vibration or structure- borne noise, shall be shock mounted in inertia blocks or bases and/or vibration isolators in a manner approved by the Building Official.
13. During construction, Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
14. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
15. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
Building Division of the Community Development Department
16. The Project requires review and approval of a building permit by the Building Official. Applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a building permit prior to commencing any construction activity.
17. The Project shall comply with all recommendations from the geotechnical engineering investigations:
a. The applicant shall retain a California-licensed Geotechnical Engineer to provide all required geotechnical review, observation, and testing during grading, excavation, and foundation construction. A letter from the Geotechnical Engineer confirming review and approval of the project plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of any grading or building permit.
b. The contractor shall provide the Geotechnical Engineer and the City a minimum of 72 hours’ notice prior to any earthwork, subdrain installation, retaining walls, or drilled pier operations.
c. Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant shall submit certification by the Geotechnical Engineer of record confirming that all work has been completed in substantial conformance with the soils investigation/geotechnical report.
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department
18. Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction, and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans prior to issuance of a building permit.
19. The following requirements must be clearly noted on the construction plans for the Project:
a. Bay View Road shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, debris, and soil. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced. A properly signed no-parking zone may be established during normal working hours only. b. All recorded survey points, monuments, railroad spikes, pins, cross cuts on top of sidewalks and tags on top of culvert headwalls or end walls whether within private property or public right-of-way shall be protected and preserved. If survey point/s are altered, removed or destroyed, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the services of a licensed surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer to restore or replace the survey points and record the required map prior to occupancy of the first unit. c. Existing public improvements within the property frontage that are damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project. Any damage to improvements within city right-of-way or to any private property, whether adjacent to subject property or not, that is determined by the City Engineer to have resulted from construction activities related to this project, shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.
20. Excess site drainage must be conducted under the sidewalk to the street. Storm drainage should be designed for a 100-year event (a rate of rainfall anticipated to occur only once in 100 years, on average). The storm drainage system must be in compliance with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for San Mateo County, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
21. Prior to certificate of occupancy or final inspection, existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that is damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as deemed by the City Engineer, even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this Project.
22. New driveway approach ramp and new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be per City Standards. Where the sidewalk crosses the driveway approach it must be ADA-compliant, providing no more than 2% cross-slope for no less than 48" width.
23. Applicant shall grind the existing asphalt street pavement with a minimum of 2 inches to street centerline or to the extent of the longest utility trench if beyond the centerline along Bay View Road, and an overlay of Caltrans specification ½" Type 'A' hot mix asphalt concrete shall be placed. If, in the opinion of the City Engineer, damage to the pavement during construction is more extensive, a larger area may have to be ground & overlaid. All pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind.
24. All utilities shall be installed underground from the nearest joint pole or box.
25. New waterline for fire sprinkler system shall be per City Standards 300 and 301.
26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:
a. An accurate survey plan, showing:
i. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;
ii.property lines labeled with bearings and distances;
iii. edge of public right-of-way
iv. any easements
b. A site plan, showing:
i. the whole width of right-of-way of adjacent streets, including existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, pavement overlay, undersidewalk drainage, driveway approaches, sidewalk, curb & gutter, ADAcompliant curb ramps, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any ground-mounted equipment, any existing or proposed street markings and signage; existing and requested traffic control devices, existing and proposed street lights; existing and proposed street monuments ii.the slopes of existing adjacent and any proposed streets; iii. plan, profile and cross sections of the proposed driveways; proposed driveway shall not exceed the maximum grade of 18%;
iv. measurements to adjacent driveways within 25' of the project limits; v.any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10' of the property lines;
vi. any existing trees that might be affected by the project; vii. any creeks or seasonal drainage swales or ditches on the property or near enough to be affected by the project
c. Details for construction within the public right-of-way or public easements such as, but not limited to:
i. structural sections for pavements, sidewalks, driveways; ii.water, storm drainage and sanitary sewer pipes and structures; iii. gas, electric and communications facilities;
iv. retaining walls, fences, planters, steps or stairways, or any other fixed structures;
v.All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.
27. Prior to the site being physically disturbed in any way that could affect storm water runoff, Applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control plan by the Building Official.
28. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to any work undertaken in the public rightof-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City Standards, Caltrans Standard Specifications, Pacifica Municipal Code, Administrative Policies, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee, and shall be completed prior issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Permit fees shall be determined per the current adopted fee schedule at the time of permit issuance.
29. Applicant shall provide an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreement for the Stormwater Treatment Measures, which shall specify that measures shall be inspected at an interval to be determined by the City Engineer. The draft agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The agreement shall include provisions that allow the City to perform maintenance if not performed by the owner, with such costs to be lien on the property if not promptly reimbursed by owner.
30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide documentation that the geotechnical engineer has confirmed that the bio-swales will not create stability issues with the grade slopes, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer.
31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise to conform Drainage Area Codes (A, B, C, D) to Worksheet D of C.3 checklist (1,2,3), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Coordinate area of Drainage Area B with area in Worksheet D.
32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise the drainage plan to identify Self Treating Areas on the plan and on the table.
33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide a detail for the catch basin with sump pump downslope of the house for review and approval by the City Engineer.
34. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall show how stormwater flows into each of the Bio Swales from pipes and driveway surface, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
35. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan (TCP), which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The TCP shall include the following and any other information as deemed necessary by the City Engineer upon review of the TCP:
a. Identification of the path of travel for delivery trucks to and from the project site. This travel-path shall be shown starting from and returning to the City’s designated truck route or the City limits and starting from and returning to the offload location at the project site.
b. Identification of a “turn-around” area for delivery trucks on site. All open-bed trucks shall be tarped.
c. Identification of all on- and off-site worker parking locations, including any carpool pickup and drop-off locations. d. Identification of an access lane of not less than 11 feet in width between parked vehicles and equipment at all times for emergency vehicle access. e. Staging and storing of equipment and materials in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless authorized with an encroachment permit. f. Lane closures shall only be permitted with prior approval from the Department of Public Works and requested from the Department not less than 72 hours in advance of schedule and coordinated with Pacifica Police and Fire Department and Recology. The contractor shall provide the affected properties with written notice not less than 10 days in advance of any road closure. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along Olympian Way.
g. The TCP shall include a note indicative of these requirements.
North County Fire Authority
36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall complete fee payment of an Alternate Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) application to North County Fire Authority (NCFA).
37. Fire sprinkler system is required. Applicant shall submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.
38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide fire flow information per the California Fire Code, Appendix B, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
39. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install illuminated address identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
40. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install utility identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Added at the December 1, 2025, Hearing
41. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm. The detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows.
42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all public improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.
43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.
44. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air District’s (formerly Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)) Best Management Practices for dust control for review by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
45. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
*** END OF CONDITIONS ***