Pacifica City Council
February 23, 2026

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
 Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the TDA Program’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
 Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 2, the financial statements present only the TDA Program and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City, as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, and the changes in its financial position or where applicable, its cash flows for the years ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Required Supplementary Information
Management has omitted management’s discussion and analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required 2 3.d
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Pacifica
Pacifica, California

by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Our opinions on the basic financial statements are not affected by this missing information.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 31, 2025 on our consideration of the TDA Program’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the TDA Program’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Emeryville, California
December 31, 2025
3 3.d
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) This page intentionally left blank.
4 3.d
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) City of Pacifica
Transportation Development Act Program
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2025 and 2024
2025 2024
ASSETS
Intergovernmental receivables $ 308,625 $ 14,325
Total assets $ 308,625 $ 14,325

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Due to City $ 308,625 $ 14,325
Total liabilities 308,625 14,325
Deferred inflows of resources:

Unavailable revenues - 14,325
Fund Balances:

Unassigned - (14,325)
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances $ 308,625 $ 14,325
See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
5 3.d
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) City of Pacifica
Transportation Development Act Program
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024
2025 2024
Revenues:

TDA Revenues $ 308,625 $ 26,535
Total Revenues 308,625 26,535
Expenditures:

Palmetto & Esplanade Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 294,300 18,300 Total Expenditures 294,300 18,300
Net change in fund balances 14,325 8,235
Fund Balances:

Beginning of year (14,325) (22,560)
End of year $ - $ (14,325)
See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
6 3.d
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) City of Pacifica Transportation Development Act Program Notes to Financial Statements
For the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
The City of Pacifica (City) has received funds under the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article

3.0 which provides funding for the Palmetto & Esplanade Bike and Pedestrian Improvements project.

The project was funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The financial statements are intended to present the TDA Program, and not the financial position and the changes in fund balances of the City as a whole.

B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Revenues are generally recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the related liabilities are incurred.

The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. All governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus, wherein only current assets and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheet.

Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets.

C. Fund Accounting
The operations of the TDA Program are accounted for within a capital project fund by using separate project codes.

D. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

E. Receivables
During the course of normal operations, the fund carries various receivable balances for unreimbursed eligible TDA expenditures.

F. Program balance
The TDA fund balance is restricted by third parties to be used in accordance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The program had a fund balance of $0 and $(14,325) as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.
7 3.d
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) City of Pacifica Transportation Development Act Program Notes to Financial Statements
For the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024

2. TDA ARTICLE 3.0 REVENUES
During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, the City expended amounts against authorized TDA allocation instructions from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the following projects:

Project Name Grant
Palmetto & Esplanade Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 23001020 $ 335,160 $ 335,160 Allocation
Instruction # Expenditures
8 3.d
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR)

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON

COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditors’ Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Pacifica
Pacifica, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Transportation Development Act Program (TDA Program) of the City of Pacifica, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the TDA Program’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 31, 2025.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting in relation to the TDA Program (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

3.d
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Pacifica
Pacifica, California

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the TDA Program’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Emeryville, California
December 31, 2025
10 3.d
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR)

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS Independent Auditors’ Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Pacifica
Pacifica, California
Report on Compliance
Opinion
We have audited the City of Pacifica (City)’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in Section 6666 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission applicable to the City’s Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA Program) for the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its TDA Program for the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024.

Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Section 6666 of the Act; and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and the Act are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the City’s TDA Program. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s TDA Program.

3.d
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Pacifica
Pacifica, California

Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and Section 6666 of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of the TDA Program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and Section 6666 of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
 Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with Section 6666 of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material 12 3.d
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Pacifica
Pacifica, California

weaknesses, as defined below. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of Section 6666 of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of Section 6666 of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of Section 6666 of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of Section 6666 of the Act, and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Emeryville, California
December 31, 2025
13 3.d
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment D: City of Pacifica FY 2024-25 Transportation Development Act Program (TDA) (6148 : FY 2024-25 ACFR)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/23/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Financial Report for the General Fund for the quarter ending December 31, 2025 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the General Fund for the quarter ending December 31, 2025
STAFF CONTACT:

Marisol Gómez, Director of Finance and Administrative Services (650) 501-0257
[email protected]
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Fiscal sustainability remains one of the City Council strategic priorities, which includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal includes preparing a quarterly financial report that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.

On June 23, 2025, the City Council adopted the FY2025-2026 Budget.

The Quarterly Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s operations and fiscal condition. This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the quarter ending December 31, 2025.

General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to Property Tax, Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), business registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, building permit fees, and recreation services.

The Second Quarter Financial Report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund, outlining revenues and expenditures as of December 31, 2025.

The General Fund financial report is generally prepared on a cash basis, under which only 4 Packet Pg. 294
Pacifica City Council 2
February 23, 2026
revenues actually received by the end of each quarter are reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when payments are made, in accordance with the cash basis method of accounting. However, the First Quarter report is typically prepared on a modified cash basis, as certain revenues and expenditures pertaining to the prior fiscal year are accrued back to that year to ensure accurate financial reporting, comparability and budget monitoring.

The Fourth Quarter report is typically presented on a modified cash basis, as revenues earned and invoices for services incurred during the fiscal year may be received after year-end and must be accrued back to the appropriate fiscal year.

Second Quarter Financial Report
As of the end of the Second Quarter (December 31, 2025), General Fund Revenues and Transfers In totaled $24.8 million (47% of budget), while Expenditures and Transfers Out totaled $22.5 million (42% of budget). The positive net change in revenues over expenditures of $2.3 million during the Second Quarter is expected, as the City’s major revenue sources are typically received in the second and fourth quarters due to timing. In December, the City received $7.3 million in property tax assessments and $1.3 million in Vehicle License Fees from the San Mateo County Controller’s office. Additional details on the City’s financial performance as of the end of the Second Quarter of the FY 2025-26 is presented in Attachment 1.

Preliminary second-quarter results indicate that General Fund revenues and expenditures are generally aligned with adopted budget assumptions; however, these figures remain preliminary and subject to refinement through the routine review process, including the Mid-Year Budget Review and fiscal year-end closing for audit purposes.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition at the end of the quarter.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Second Quarter Financial Report is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: Preparation and presentation of the Quarterly Financial Report support sound budget monitoring, fiscal oversight, and adherence to the City’s adopted financial policies and controls by tracking revenues and expenditures against the approved budget.
• Broaden public communications and collaboration: Filing of the Quarterly Financial Report promotes transparency and accountability by providing the City Council and community with the City’s revenue performance, expenditure trends, and overall fiscal position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report, as it is retrospective in nature and reflects prior-period activity; however, the Quarterly Financial Report summarizes revenues and expenditures that directly affect the City’s overall fiscal condition. 4 Packet Pg. 295
Pacifica City Council 3
February 23, 2026
ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Q2 FY2025-26 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 296
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Second Quarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Second Quarterly Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund from July 2025 through Decembers 2025. The City of Pacifica has completed the Second Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2025-26.

The Second Quarter Financial Report will summarize the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operational activities. Information presented in this report is unaudited, and additional adjustments may occur during the mid-year and year-end processes.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition: With half the year complete, General Fund Revenues & Transfers In are at 47%, and General Fund Expenditures & Transfers Out are at 42% of the FY 2025-26 Budget projections. Budgeted operating and capital transfers have been recorded on a quarterly basis, such that transfer-ins are included in the department programs, and transfer-outs are included in the non-department expenditures. Hence, they are exactly at the 50% benchmark. It is worth noting that the transfer-out category increased because of the renewed funding from the General Fund to cover annual debt service after a one-year temporary relief in FY 2025. Revenues are 46% of the budget during the Second quarter due to the timing of certain key revenues such as property tax, business license taxes, franchise fees, and sales tax. The year-over-year revenue comparison for the second quarter shows a slight decrease of 2% between FY 2026 and FY 2025. The expenditures for the first half of the year for general fund represent 42% of the budget adopted.

Table 1: General Fund Quarterly Summary as of December 31, 2025 The General Fund Balance as of December 31, 2025, is estimated to be $24,899,447, based on the audited fund balance of $22,635,647 as of the end of the Fiscal Year 2024-25, and factoring in year-to-date net change of $2,263,800 in the Second quarter.

Expenditures:

Table 2 presents General Fund Expenditures by Department for Quarter 2 (Q2) of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 and FY 2025- 26, alongside the adopted budget for FY 2025-26. It also includes the percentage change in expenditures between Q2 General Fund Qtr 2
FY2024-25
Qtr 2
FY2025-26
FY2025-26
Adopted
Budget
% Change
Qtr 2 FY24-25
vs
Qtr 2 FY25-26
Qtr 2
% Budget
Revenues $ 24,439,907 $ 24,065,098 $ 51,776,202 -2% 46% Transfer in 711,000 739,400 1,478,800 4% 50% 47%
Expenditures 20,168,165 20,781,409 49,729,314 3% 42%
Transfer Out 831,300 1,759,290 3,518,579 112% 50% 42%
Net Change in Fund $ 4,151,443 $ 2,263,800 $ 7,109

4.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Q2 FY2025-26 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (6150 : FY 2025-26 Q2 General Fund Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Second Quarter Financial Report
2 of both fiscal years and the percentage of the budget spent in Q2 of FY 2025-26.

Table 2: General Fund Quarterly Expenditures as of December 31, 2025 Total Q2 expenditures were higher by 7% from the previous year of $20,999,465 (FY24-25) to $22,504,698 (FY25-26). 42% of the total adopted budget ($53.2M) has been spent in Q2. This suggests spending is roughly on track if distributed evenly across the year.

All departments are on target at the end of the Second Quarter and align with expected spending patterns. The total expenditures are slightly lower than 50% of the budget because some contractual payments were accrued back to the previous fiscal year for some July and August payments to match the services rendering time.

General Government Expenditures at the end of Q2 were $3,103,871, which is about 36% of the budget. This is mostly due to delayed payments for various legal costs, slightly delayed start of the 2212 Beach Blvd site evaluation consulting work under the City Manager’s contractual services, and timing of budgeted IT equipment purchases.

Police Department Expenditures at the end of Q2 were $5,888,235, which is about 43% of the budget. The lower trend compared to last year’s Q2 is primarily attributable to lower spending in regular salaries and related budgeted retirement benefits for the patrol division due to ongoing vacancies and recruitment challenges.

Fire Department Expenditures at the end of Q2 were $3,895,247 which is about $46% of the budget. Trending lower as compared with last year Q2 of $4,416,541. Upon closer look, salaries across all divisions such as emergency services, support services and paramedic support are lower than budget mostly due to salary savings from retirement of the Deputy Fire Chief in July 2025.

Community Development Expenditures at the end of second quarter represent approximately 44% of the adopted budget, generally consistent with the expected mid-year benchmark. Minor timing differences related to the recognition of cost-reimbursable activity contribute to the variance. Compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year, Q2 expenditures reflect approximately 20% higher recorded activity, primarily attributable to increased reimbursable legal services costs.

General Fund Expenditures
by Department
Qtr 2
FY2024-25
Qtr 2
FY2025-26
FY2025-26
Adopted
Budget
% Change
Qtr 2 FY24-25
vs
Qtr 2 FY25-26
Qtr 2
% Budget
General Government $ 2,721,617 $ 3,103,871 $ 8,709,896 14% 36% Police Department 6,107,801 5,888,235 13,567,079 -4% 43% Fire Department 4,416,541 3,895,247 8,510,440 -12% 46%
Community Development 1,773,992 2,125,567 4,884,974 20% 44% Public Works 2,209,292 2,361,935 5,143,615 7% 46%
PB&R 2,748,920 2,948,014 7,267,193 7% 41%
Non-Departmental 190,001 458,540 1,646,117 141% 28%
Transfer Out 831,300 1,759,290 3,518,579 112% 50%
Total General Fund
Expenditures&TransferOut $ 20,999,465 $ 22,540,698 $ 53,247,893 7% 42%

4.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Q2 FY2025-26 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (6150 : FY 2025-26 Q2 General Fund Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Second Quarter Financial Report
3 Both Public works and PB&R Expenditures at the end of Q2 are both generally aligned with the adopted budget, each slightly under the 50% mid-year benchmark. Compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year, recorded expenditures reflect a modest year-over-year increase.

The Non-departmental Expenditures at the end of Q2 are at 28% of the FY 2025-26 budget consistent with the timing of annual payments. The annual OPEB contribution in FY 2025-26 was budgeted at $283,750, and paid to the PARS fund in July, earlier than in the prior year, which reflects in the year over year higher trend.

As noted previously, transfers out are made quarterly in accordance with the adopted budget. The year-over-year increase reflects a change in funding structure: in FY 2024-25, the Debt Service Fund was fully funded from within the Debt Service Fund rather than the General Fund, providing fiscal relief and additional flexibility within the General Fund. In FY 2025-26, transfers to the Debt Service Fund have resumed from the General Fund. As of the end of the second quarter, Transfers Out are reflected at approximately 50% of the adopted budget, consistent with the quarterly transfer schedule.

Revenues:

Table 3: General Fund Quarterly Revenues as of December 31, 2025 Here are key revenue observations and highlights:

Total revenues as of the end of the second quarter are approximately 1% lower compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year, declining from $25.2 million (FY 2024-25) to $24.8 million (FY 2025-26). Year-to-date collections represent approximately 47% of the adopted annual budget of $53.3 million.

Property Tax: Property tax remains the City’s largest revenue source. The second installment for FY 2025-26 was received from the County of San Mateo in December 2025 and is reflected in the second quarter results. Year-to-date General Fund Revenues by
Type
Qtr 2
FY2024-25
Qtr 2
FY2025-26
FY2025-26
Adopted
Budget
% Change
Qtr 2 FY24-25
vs
Qtr 2 FY25-26
Qtr 2
% Budget
Property tax $ 8,532,570 $ 9,064,396 $ 17,466,700 6% 52% Sales Taxes 1,042,521 1,079,278 3,241,230 4% 33%
Measure Y 832,232 876,614 2,505,100 5% 35%
Transient Occupancy Tax 1,594,456 1,950,252 2,358,000 22% 83% Franchise Tax 273,222 435,932 1,352,550 60% 32%
Business License Tax 464,550 518,649 582,000 12% 89%
Utility Users Tax 1,375,521 1,046,786 2,870,000 -24% 36% Vehicle License Fee 3,085,670 2,952,110 5,410,902 -4% 55% Cannabis Tax 235,084 273,684 800,000 16% 34%
ERAF - 172,342 3,860,000 4%
Grants 2,692,260 1,763,057 2,831,720 -35% 62%
Investment Earning 663,134 676,392 972,100 2% 70%
Department Programs 3,648,688 3,255,605 7,525,900 -11% 43% Transfer In 711,000 739,400 1,478,800 4% 50%
Total General Fund
Revenues&TransferIn $ 25,150,907 $ 24,804,498 $ 53,255,002 -1% 47%

4.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Q2 FY2025-26 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (6150 : FY 2025-26 Q2 General Fund Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Second Quarter Financial Report
4 property tax revenue represents approximately 52% of the adopted budget. Compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year, collections are approximately 6% higher, or slightly higher than the budget assumptions reflecting recent real estate market trends.

Sales Tax: As of December 31, 2025, the City has received 33% of its budgeted Sales Tax revenues. There is a twomonth lag on the receipt of sales tax revenues, and the amount shown only represents four months of receipts and is consistent with the prior year.

Measure Y: As of December 31, 2025, the City has received 35% of its budgeted Measure Y Transaction and Use Tax revenues. There is a two-month lag on the receipt of tax revenues, and the amount shown only represents four months of receipts and is consistent with the prior year.

Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT): TOT revenues are remitted approximately 30 days after the end of each month, and revenues are not accrued at quarter‐end (as they are at the end of the fiscal year). The second quarter reflects TOT receipts for the months of July through November activity. This category includes taxes from both Hotel and ShortTerm Rental (STR) operators. This year’s was reduced to reflect anticipated impacts of the update STR ordinance. With the adoption of the revised STR ordinance, a reduction in TOT was anticipated due to the expected non-renewal and closure of a number of STR properties that could not comply with the stricter ordinance requirements. However, before accounts could be formally closed, operators were required to remit any outstanding tax liabilities. As a result, final payments, including prior-period balances, generated temporary, one-time increases in collections. The ongoing fiscal impact of reduced STR activity is expected to become more apparent in the third and fourth quarters, following completion of the renewal process in early Q3.

Other Taxes: These include Franchise Tax, Business License, Utility Users Tax, Vehicle License Fees, and Cannabis Operations Tax. Payments for Franchise Tax and Utility Users Taxes are remitted 30 days after the end of the month, and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) generally submits its franchise fee payment in April, and the revenue is therefore recognized in the fourth quarter. Franchise Fees are showing 60% higher than previous quarter, as last year there were catch-up pass-through payments to Pacifica Community Television (PCT) from the prior year, reducing previous year’s revenues. The Utility Users Tax remittances are showing some delay in receipts as compared to previous year's quarter two. License Tax renewal takes place on November 1 annually, as such the majority of these revenues will be recorded in the second quarter.

Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is trending at 55% of the budget and on target. VLF remittances draw from two funding sources: ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) allocations, which non-basic aid school districts are entitled to, and, if necessary, property tax revenues of non-basic aid school districts. Any funds used by non-basic aid school districts for VLF purposes are reimbursed by the State. This year’s allocation represents a portion of the two year backfill payment by the State. At the mid-year budget review, staff will bring an amendment to utilize the set aside reserve since the State only funded 2/3 of the backfill payment.

Cannabis Tax shows a slight increase in comparison to the prior year’s quarter two, primarily due to timing differences in business filings. As of the second quarter, actual remittances are at 34% of the budget. Staff will continue monitoring the cannabis industry’s performance relative to budget projections, but recent reports for HdL show this tax category as continuing its downward trend year over year Statewide.

Excess ERAF: (Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund). In the past few years, ERAF revenues used to be recorded in the Disaster Accounting and Housing funds. However, in FY2025-26, to help alleviate the General Fund

4.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Q2 FY2025-26 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (6150 : FY 2025-26 Q2 General Fund Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Second Quarter Financial Report
5 financial strain, revenues will be recorded in General Fund according to the Council’s policy decision. These revenues are anticipated by the County Controller’s office in January and August, which will then be recorded in the third quarter and fourth quarters respectively. The current receipt of $172,342 represents 5% of reserves held from the total excess ERAF amount from three years ago.

Grants: As of the end of the second quarter, approximately 62% of the annual grant budget has been collected, primarily attributable to the Child Care Program. Increased staffing dedicated to program administration has improved the timeliness of reimbursement submissions and collections from grantors.

Investment Earnings: Year-to-date investment earnings represent approximately 70% of the adopted budget and are approximately 2% higher compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year. It should be noted that, as part of the fiscal year-end pooled interest allocation process, a portion of interest earnings will be distributed to other funds to reflect their proportional share of invested cash.

Department/Programs: This category includes building permits, engineering, and planning fees, and charges related to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs and rentals. As of December 31, 2025, the city received 43% of budgeted revenues, which is consistent with performance at the end of the second quarter in prior years after the summer activities. Overall, permits and planning fees tend to fluctuate based on the timing of projects.

Transfer In: As of the end of the second quarter, approximately 50% of the budgeted transfers have been received, consistent with the scheduled quarterly cost recovery transfers from other funds.

SUMMARY
As of the end of the second quarter, General Fund revenues and expenditures are generally tracking consistent with adopted budget assumptions. Year-to-date operating expenditures represent approximately 42% of the adopted budget, while revenues reflect approximately 47% of budgeted amounts.

These figures are preliminary and subject to refinement as routine accounting entries continue throughout the fiscal year, particularly during the Mid-Year Budget Review slated for March 9th, and year-end closing process, which may result in adjustments to the amounts presented.

Staff will continue to monitor revenue performance, expenditure trends, and broader economic conditions, and will report any material developments to the City Council as additional information becomes available.

4.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Q2 FY2025-26 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (6150 : FY 2025-26 Q2 General Fund Financial Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/23/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2025 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2025.

STAFF CONTACT:

Marisol Gómez, Director of Finance and Administrative Services (650) 501-0257
[email protected]
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council adopted Administrative Policy 39 - Investment Policy to reflect current law and best practices in accordance with Government Code Section 53600 et seq. The policy provides guidelines for prudent investments and efficient cash management and requires the City to provide the governing body a report regarding the City’s investment activities on a quarterly basis to ensure “compliance” with the statement of investment policy.

The investment policies and practices of the City of Pacifica are strictly based on state law and prudent money management. The investment of funds for the City is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity, and yield while meeting the cash flow needs of the City through prudent investment of unexpended cash.

All funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and the authority governing investments set forth in the California Government Code, Sections 53601 through 53659. The investment policy for bond proceeds is contained in the relevant bond documents approved by the City Council at the time of the issuance of the debt.

As shown in the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 1), the City holds various investments in external investment pools and fiscal agent accounts and they are listed at par value, cost, as well as their fair value. Par value represents the original issue amount for securities or investments purchased. There were no securities or investments that are held by the City where they were purchased at a discount or premium, so the par value is equal to the book value. The fair market value presented in the report shows the current market value of the investment as of December 31, 2025, accordingly. In accordance with GASB 31, the State provides a factor that can be multiplied by the City’s share of the LAIF pool to determine the market value each quarter. Other than LAIF, the fair market value of all other investments is equal to the book and par value.
5 Packet Pg. 302
Pacifica City Council 2
February 23, 2026
The City’s cash and investment portfolio, at fair market value, as of December 31, 2025, is $55,669,982, of which $10,002,787 is in the Tri Counties Bank various accounts, and $3,245 in Petty Cash held by various departments. $39,023,949 is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $2,456,156 is in Roy Davies Trust, $845,796 is in the PARS Trust, $150,664 is placed in Bank of New York (BNY Mellon), and $3,187,385 is placed with US Bank. Although operating checking accounts are not typical investment accounts, the City includes those balances as part of this report to show the total cash on hand for the quarter.

The City’s investment portfolio increased by $9,293,798, from $46,372,939 reported in the last quarter ending September 30, 2025 to this reporting quarter ending December 31, 2025. The $9 million improvement of cash and investment position is a combination of factors: receiving $37 million of cash receipts from various revenues sources, particularly the first installment of property taxes from San Mateo County Controller’s office in the amount of $19 million for both property taxes and property related special assessments such as Sewer charges and storm water. The expending $28 million of cash payments broken are down as follows: $16 million in vendor payments, $8 million in employee payroll and benefits, and $4 million debt payments.

The Treasurer’s Report includes details of cash and investments which are held by institutions.

The report also summarizes the City’s cash position and distribution across funds for both quarters. Historical cash flow trends are compared to current cash flow requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all reasonable anticipated operating requirements. At the end of each reported quarter, the portfolio contained sufficient liquidity to meet the next six months of expected expenditures by the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 2nd Quarter Treasurer’s Report will not change the City’s cash position as of the end of the quarter ending December 31, 2025.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the 2nd Quarter Treasurer’s Report is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: Preparation and presentation of the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report support prudent cash management, financial oversight, and adherence to the City’s adopted Investment Policy and fiscal controls. • Broaden public communications and collaboration: Filing of the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report promotes transparency and accountability by providing the City Council and community with timely information regarding the City’s cash position and investment activity.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report, as it is retrospective in nature and reflects prior-period activity; however, the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report outlines fiscal transactions that directly affect the City’s financial standing. 5 Packet Pg. 303
Pacifica City Council 3
February 23, 2026
ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Q2 Treasurer's Report 12-31-2025 (PDF)
Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 304
City of Pacifica
Q2 Treasurer's Report as
of December 31, 2025
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value BOOK Value
% of
Portfolio
Cash
Tri Counties Bank-General Account $ 9,348,211 9,348,211 $ 9,348,211 $ 16.82% Tri Counties Bank-Payroll Account 644,639 644,639 644,639 1.16% Tri Counties Bank-Turbo Data 9,937 9,937 9,937 0.02%
Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,245 3,245 3,245 0.01% Total Cash $ 10,006,032 $ 10,006,032 $ 10,006,032 18.00% Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF)* $ 38,939,005 $ 39,023,949 $ 38,939,005 70.05%
City National Bank-Roy Davies Trust 2,456,156 2,456,156 2,456,156 4.42% PARS PENSION** 845,796 845,796 845,796 1.52%
Bank of New York Mellon-RDA 2004 Bonds 150,664 150,664 150,664 0.27% US Bank - Money Market Fund 3,187,385 3,187,385 3,187,385 5.73% Total Investments $ 45,579,006 $ 45,663,950 $ 45,579,006 82.00% Total Cash and Investments $ 55,585,038 $ 55,669,982 $ 55,585,038 100.00% * LAIF FAIR VAUE RATE 1.002181483 https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/reports/valuation.asp ** PARS TRUST - PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES - INVESTS IN CAPITAL APPRECIATION

FUNDS FOR THE CITY'S OPEB TRUST AND MODERATE INDEX FUNDS

5.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Q2 Treasurer's Report 12-31-2025 (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report) City of Pacifica
Q2 Treasurer's Report
as of December 31, 2025
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Bank Amount
TRI COUNTIES GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT xx0541 9,844,154
TRI COUNTIES PAYROLL ACCOUNT xx6915 647,024
TRI COUNTIES WORKERS COMP ACCOUNT xx1341 -
TRI COUNTIES SENIOR SERVICES ACCOUNT xx5996 -
TRI COUNTIES TURBO DATA ACCOUNT xx9758 9,937
PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 3,245
CITY NATIONAL BANK ROY DAVIES TRUST-PRINCIPAL xx5367 2,456,156 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 38,939,005 BNY- RDA xx0166/xx0167 150,664
US BANK - 2014 WASTEWATER BONDS 2126700 1,074
US BANK - 2016 REFUNDING 24953500 1,060,176
US BANK - 2017 WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND-PROJECT FUND 27843200 1,966 US BANK - 2019 TAXABLE PENSION OBLIGATION BOND 267004000-3 1 US BANK - 2021 CIVIC CENTER BONDS 249299000 -
US BANK - 2023 WW IBANK LOAN 207877539 2,124,168
PARS- PENSION&OPEB PACIFICA 845,796
DEPOSIT IN TRANSIT 32,598
OUTSTANDING AP CHECKS at 12/31/25 (528,541)
OUTSTANDING PR CHECKS at 12/31/25 (2,625)
EE Refund for overpayment B#560 240
TOTAL ADJUSTED BANK BALANCE 55,585,038
Description ORG OBJECT Book Amount
CASH IN GENERAL ACCOUNT 101 10001 9,348,211
CASH IN BANK - PAYROLL 101 10002 644,639
CASH IN BANK - TURBO 101 10003 9,937
PETTY CASH 101/518 10020 3,245
INVESTMENTS - LAIF 101 10101 38,939,005
PARS TRUSTS-PENSION 101 11001 845,796
R DAVIES TRUST 227 11003 2,456,156
BNY- RDA 2004 BONDS FISCAL AGENT 791 11204 150,664
RESERVE CASH-2014 WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING 518 11214 1,074 CASH RESERVE - 2016 LEASE PAYMENT 440 11216 1,060,176
RESERVE CASH-2017 WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING

PROJECT
518 11217 1,966
RESERVE CASH-2019 POB BONDS 440 11219 1
CITY OF PACIFICA 2021 PROJECT FUND 322 11221 -
US BANK-2023 WASTE WATER BANK LOAN 518 11223 2,124,168
TOTAL ADJUSTED BOOK BALANCE 55,585,038

5.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Q2 Treasurer's Report 12-31-2025 (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report) 1 | P a g e
City of Pacifica
Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms
Agency: Federal agency securities and /or Government-sponsored enterprises.

Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The official annual financial report for the City of Pacifica. It includes a combined set of statements for each individual fund and account group prepared with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.

Bankers’ Acceptance (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company.

The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer.

Book Value: The value at which a security or investment is carried on the financial records of its owner. This value may be the original cost of acquisition of the security or original cost adjusted by amortization of a premium or accretion of a discount. The book value may differ from the security’s current market value.

Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.

California Local Government Debt: Is bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within California. California local government debt is a permitted investment under the California Government Code. The Government Code does not specify minimum credit ratings for local government debt in which local agencies may invest.

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.

Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable.

Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit of other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date.

Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.

Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an

5.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report) 2 | P a g e
exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities.

Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities or commodities).

Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount.

Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns.

Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S&L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per deposit.

Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations.

Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLB is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank.

Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.

FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest.

Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve and Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money.

5.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report) 3 | P a g e
Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system.

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA or FmHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.

Issuer: Any corporation, government unit or financial institution which borrows money through the sale of securities.

Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one per cent of the earnings.

Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are pooled together for investment and reinvestment.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.

Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase – reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyerlender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower.

Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Money Market: The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded.

Mutual Funds: Referred to in the Government Code, Section 53601(l) as “shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies.” The Mutual Fund must be restricted by its by-laws to the same investments as the local agency by the Government Code. These investments are Treasury issues, Federal Agency issues, State of California and City (within California) debt obligations, Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Certificates of Deposit, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Reverse Repurchase Agreements,

5.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report) 4 | P a g e
and Medium Term Corporate Notes. The quality rating and percentage restrictions in each investment category applicable to the local agency also apply to the Mutual Fund.

Negotiable: Term used to designate a security, the title to which is transferable by delivery.

Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid.

Open Market Operations: Purchases and sales of government and certain other securities in the open market by the New York Federal Reserve Bank as directed by the FOMC in order to influence the volume of money and credit in the economy. Purchases inject reserves into the bank system and stimulate growth of money and credit; sales have the opposite effect. Open market operations are the Federal Reserve’s most important and most flexible monetary policy tool.

Par Value: The amount of principal of a security that must be paid at maturity. The par value may also be referred to as the “face amount” of a security.

Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.

Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers included Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.

Principal: Describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money which the investor pays for the investment.

Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state – the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital.

Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the State to hold public deposits.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return.

Repurchase Agreement (RP or Repo): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank services.

5.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report) 5 | P a g e
Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Security: An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity.

Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.

SEC Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule.

Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.

Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year.

Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to ten years.

Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio.

Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among member of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.

Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.

5.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (6147 : FY 2025-26 Q2 Treasurer's Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/23/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo for Participation in the Compost for Climate Solutions Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution entitled, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo for Participation in the San Mateo County Compost for Climate Solutions Program to Support Senate Bill 1383 Procurement Compliance."
STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Melissa Tibgao, P.E., Public Works Director
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In 2016, Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) established statewide targets to reduce methane emissions from organic waste disposed of in landfills. SB 1383 requires jurisdictions to reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent from 2014 levels by 2025 and to procure significant quantities of recovered organic waste products (ROWP), such as compost, mulch, and renewable natural gas, on an annual basis. Each jurisdiction, including the City of Pacifica, has been assigned an annual ROWP procurement target by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

The Compost for Climate Solutions Program (CCSP) was launched in 2021 as a collaborative effort among the County of San Mateo, the San Mateo Resource Conservation District, and the cities and towns within the county to help meet these requirements. Between 2021 and 2025, the CCSP procured and applied more than 30,000 tons of compost to local farms and rangelands, contributing to countywide procurement targets while improving soil health and climate resilience along the county’s coastline.

Beginning in 2026, the County of San Mateo will serve as the administrator of the Program and will enter into a single intergovernmental agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District to implement compost procurement, delivery, application, and required SB 1383 recordkeeping on behalf of participating jurisdictions.

Under this structure, the City of Pacifica would enter into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County and provide an annual financial contribution to the CCSP. In return, the City will receive SB 1383 procurement credit in proportion to its contribution without the need to directly manage contracts, field activities, or carry out record keeping activities. 6 Packet Pg. 312
Pacifica City Council 2
February 23, 2026
For calendar year 2026, the City of Pacifica proposes to contribute $74,714.15, which is anticipated to result in around 1750 tons of recovered organic waste product procurement credit. Of this amount, the County will retain between two and four percent to offset staff time required to administer and coordinate the Program on the jurisdiction’s behalf. The final administrative percentage will be documented by the County for the City’s review.

The County will provide the City of Pacifica with procurement documentation and reporting information necessary for inclusion in the City’s Electronic Annual Report (EAR) to CalRecycle and will provide written program status updates.

Participation in the Compost for Climate Solutions Program is expected to increase access to cost-subsidized compost for local farms and ranches, improve soil health, enhance carbon sequestration, and support climate-resilient agriculture. Compost application provides long-term environmental and economic benefits across the county.

The City Manager recommends adopting the resolution and approving the Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment 1) between the City of Pacifica and San Mateo County.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the MOU. However, this could result in the City not meeting SB 1383 requirements. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the MOU is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:

Improve and Steward City Infrastructure: Approving the MOU will help the City reduce methane emissions from organic waste disposed of in landfills and reduce the effects to climate change.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 2026 City of Pacifica contribution is limited to the authorized amount in the MOU. For calendar year 2026, the City’s contribution is $74,714.15, which is anticipated to result in around 1750 tons of recovered organic waste product procurement credit. The City has the option to contribute additional funds to the CCSP or other County-led projects for additional procurement credit under this MOU with additional written approval from the City. Participation provides a cost-effective and administratively efficient approach to meeting SB 1383 procurement requirements.

There is no fiscal impact for this year, as there are enough funds from a CalRecycle grant to cover the full cost of $74,714.15. Future MOU contribution will be included in the City’s annual budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
6 Packet Pg. 313
Pacifica City Council 3
February 23, 2026
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 314
Pacifica City Council 4
February 23, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR

PARTICIPATION IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY COMPOST FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS PROGRAM (CCSP) TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL 1383 PROCUREMENT COMPLIANCE WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) requires local jurisdictions to reduce organic waste disposal and annually procure recovered organic waste products (ROWPs), such as compost, to support greenhouse gas reduction and organic waste diversion goals; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has assigned the City of Pacifica an annual ROWP procurement target pursuant to SB 1383 regulations; and
WHEREAS, since 2021, the San Mateo County Compost for Climate Solutions Program (CCSP) has delivered over 30,000 tons of compost to farms and ranches in San Mateo County, supporting soil health, carbon sequestration, and climate-resilient agricultural practices while contributing to the City of Pacifica SB 1383 compliance; and WHEREAS, beginning in 2026, the County of San Mateo will serve as CCSP administrator and will enter into a single intergovernmental agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District to implement compost procurement, delivery, application, and required SB 1383 recordkeeping on behalf of participating jurisdictions; WHEREAS, under this structure, participating cities will provide the County of San Mateo financial contribution to the CCSP in exchange for receiving SB 1383 procurement credit in proportion to their contribution and avoiding duplicative administrative effort; and WHEREAS, by participating in a County-administered program, the City of Pacifica avoids the cost and staff time associated with developing and managing separate contracts, conducting procurement processes, coordinating field activities, and establishing recordkeeping and reporting processes, resulting in a more cost-effective and administratively efficient approach to SB 1383 compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MOU as to form and substance and desires to enter into the agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo for participation in the San Mateo County Compost for Climate Solutions Program, for and on behalf of the City.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or their designee, is authorized to approve annual program authorization letters and funding contributions pursuant to the MOU, subject to the availability
• • • • •
6 Packet Pg. 315
Pacifica City Council 5
February 23, 2026
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ ________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 316
1 “ATTACHMENT 1”

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SENATE BILL (SB) 1383 COMPLIANT

PROCUREMENT PROGRAM
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), entered into on this 23rd day of February 2026, by and between the County of San Mateo, hereinafter called "the County" and the City of Pacifica, hereinafter called "the Jurisdiction"; W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1383 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016), which required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt regulations to reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025; and WHEREAS, the SB 1383 regulations (Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 12 of the California Code of Regulations) require jurisdictions to procure recovered organic waste products (ROWPs) to meet annual targets set by CalRecycle; and WHEREAS, in 2021, the Jurisdiction, the County, and the San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) launched a program to comply with SB 1383 requirements (Program), which between 2021 and 2024 procured and applied 21,000 tons of cost-reduced compost for local farms and rangelands, contributing to countywide procurement targets; and WHEREAS, the Program will conclude in 2026 unless a new agreement is established; and
WHEREAS, all parties have recognized the value of continuing the Program to support SB 1383 compliance, leverage prior CalRecycle SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant investments and advance progress toward procurement targets; and
WHEREAS, the Jurisdiction shall determine its annual funding contribution to the Program and shall receive procurement credit in proportion to its contribution; and WHEREAS, the County has agreed to administer the Program on the Jurisdiction’s behalf to reduce collective staff time, duplicative administrative burdens and costs in exchange for an administrative fee; and
WHEREAS, the Jurisdiction will remain ultimately responsible for meeting its annual ROWP procurement targets.

6.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383) 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services to be Performed by the County
A. Program Administration
a. The County shall serve as Program administrator, overseeing the agreement with the RCD to ensure coordination and successful implementation of the Program, in accordance with SB 1383 requirements. In this role, the County shall provide contract management, fiscal oversight, and coordination with participating jurisdictions.
b. The County shall serve as the direct service provider and allocate procurement credits in proportion to the Jurisdiction’s contribution to the Program. c. The County shall execute an intergovernmental agreement with the RCD by February 28, 2026, to implement the Program and shall maintain the agreement for the duration of this MOU.

B. Program Funding
a. The County shall invoice the Jurisdiction for an initial contribution, set by the Jurisdiction, for an amount not to exceed $74,714.15, by February 28, 2026. The initial contribution will fund the Program for calendar year 2026. Invoices may be issued after this date or divided into multiple billings if necessary to align with the Jurisdiction’s fiscal schedule. Of the total invoiced amount, the County will retain between 2% and 4% of the total amount to offset staff time costs required to administer the Program. The County will track all administrative costs associated with the Program and will furnish data to the Jurisdiction justifying the final administrative rate that will be retained. The rate will not exceed 4% in the first year of implementation. The percentage of funding retained for County administrative costs will be adjusted in future years based on the total staff time required to administer this Program.
b. The County shall provide a Program Authorization Letter Template to the Jurisdiction, by September 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, for use in authorizing its continued participation in the Program for the next calendar year. In this letter, the Jurisdiction shall specify its total contribution, the anticipated tons of ROWP credit to be received, and the percent of its contribution that the County will retain to offset Program administration costs. The letter shall be signed by an employee of the Jurisdiction who is authorized to commit and disburse funding to the Program.

6.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383) 3 c. The County shall invoice the Jurisdiction for its contribution to the Program as defined in the Authorization Letter no later than January 30, 2027, and annually thereafter. If no authorization letter is provided for a given calendar year, the County shall not invoice the Jurisdiction.
d. The County shall carry forward any unspent Program contribution for the Jurisdiction’s future use in the Program.
e. Upon termination of this MOU, the County shall return any unspent contributions to the Jurisdiction within sixty (60) days.

C. Recordkeeping & Reporting
a. The County shall provide the Jurisdiction with access to an online database containing all information related to Program activities, in compliance with SB 1383 recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The database shall clearly identify the ROWP procurement completed by the County on the Jurisdiction’s behalf under this MOU.
b. The County shall provide the Jurisdiction with the information necessary to report procurement activities in its Electronic Annual Report (EAR) to CalRecycle. This information shall be provided no later than June 1 of each year. c. The County shall provide the Jurisdiction with written status reports twice per year on all Program activities.

D. Additional Work
a. With written approval, the County may invoice the Jurisdiction for supplemental contributions to the Program, to increase the Jurisdiction’s procurement credit.

Such approval shall specify the total funding amount and the portion allocated to Program activities and County administrative costs. Jurisdictions are not obliged to support additional work. A Jurisdiction choosing not to support additional work shall not be grounds for terminating this MOU. The Jurisdiction is not guaranteed any benefit from additional work for which it does not contribute. b. With written approval, the County may invoice the Jurisdiction for contributions to additional projects or agreements undertaken on the Jurisdiction’s behalf to increase procurement credit or reduce the Jurisdiction’s procurement target set by CalRecycle. Such approval shall specify the total funding amount and the portion allocated to Program activities and County administrative costs.

2. Tasks to be Completed by the Jurisdiction
A. The Jurisdiction shall pay in full all invoices submitted by the County within forty-five (45) days of receipt.

6.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383) 4 B. The Jurisdiction shall provide the Authorization Letter to the County by November 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, to authorize its continued participation in the Program for the upcoming calendar year. The letter shall specify the total contribution, the anticipated tons of ROWP credit to be received, and the percentage of its contribution that the County will retain to offset Program administration costs.

C. The Jurisdiction may authorize participation in the Program for one (1) year or for multiple consecutive calendar years, with mutual agreement from the County. A multiyear authorization shall specify the total annual contribution amount for each year covered and shall remain subject to annual adjustment of the County’s administrative cost percentage. The Jurisdiction may revise or rescind its authorization for any future year by providing written notice to the County no later than November 1 preceding the year for which the change is requested.

D. The Jurisdiction shall be responsible for completing and submitting its EAR to CalRecycle, reporting the information provided by the County.

E. The Jurisdiction shall pay any additional invoices it has approved in writing, within fortyfive (45) days of receipt, for supplemental contributions to the Program or for additional projects and agreements undertaken by the County on the Jurisdiction’s behalf.

3. Consideration
This MOU enables the continuation of the collaborative Program, jointly developed by the Jurisdiction, County, and RCD since 2021. By participating in this MOU, the Jurisdiction avoids the administrative and financial burden of creating and managing a separate contract or Program and allocating staff time, allowing the County on behalf of all the cities in San Mateo County to leverage economies of scale to reduce countywide SB 1383 procurement compliance costs.

In return, the Jurisdiction contributes funding to the Program and receives procurement credit in proportion to its contribution. This Program advances shared countywide goals by strengthening local food system resiliency, improving soil health, reducing climate impacts, and supporting long-term economic and environmental benefits across San Mateo County.

4. Relationship of Parties
It is expressly understood that this is an agreement between independent entities, the County and the Jurisdiction, and that no individual agency, employee, partnership, joint venture, or other relationship is established by this MOU. The intent of both the County and the Jurisdiction is to create an independent collaborative relationship.

5. Hold Harmless
A. It is agreed that the County shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Jurisdiction and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every

6.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383) 5 name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of the County and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants.

B. It is agreed that Jurisdiction shall defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify the County and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of Jurisdiction and/or their respective officers, employees, agents and servants.

C. County shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Jurisdiction from and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, County’s representatives for services provided under this MOU.

D. Jurisdiction shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County from and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, Jurisdiction’s representatives for services provided under this MOU.

E. The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as set forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.

F. In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional/reckless acts) of Jurisdiction and/or their respective officers and employees, on the one hand, and the County and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants, on the other hand, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU shall be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative fault.

6. Amendment of MOU and Merger Clause
This MOU constitutes the sole MOU of the parties hereto and correctly states the rights, duties, and obligations of each party as of this document's date. In the event that any term, condition, provision, requirement or specification set forth in the body of this MOU conflicts with or is inconsistent with any term, condition, provision, requirement, or specification in any exhibit and/or attachment to this MOU, the provisions of this body of the MOU shall prevail. Any prior MOU, promises, negotiations, or representations between the parties not expressly stated in this document are not binding. Either party may request a modification to this MOU at any time. All subsequent modifications shall be in writing and will become effective when signed by all parties.

7. Records
The County shall maintain and preserve all records relating to this MOU in its possession and those of any third-party performing work related to this MOU for a period of five (5) years from the termination of this MOU.

8. Assignability

6.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383) 6 The County shall have the right to assign this MOU or any portion thereof to a third party or subcontract with a third party to perform any work required under this MOU. The County shall notify the Jurisdiction of any assignments made in advance.

9. Notices
Any written notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be deemed to be properly given when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, or when transmitted by email communication, addressed:

In the case of the County, to:

Jasneet W. Sharma, Director
County of San Mateo Sustainability Department
455 County Center, 4th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Email: [email protected]
In the case of the City of Pacifica, to:

Melissa Tigbao, DPW Director
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Email: [email protected]

10. Controlling Law and Venue
The validity of this MOU, the interpretation of its terms and conditions, and the performance of the parties hereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce this MOU must be brought in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Mateo.

11. Term and Termination
Subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the MOU, the term of this MOU shall commence on January 31, 2026, and shall be renewed, with written approval by the Jurisdiction, annually under the same terms and conditions. This MOU may be terminated without cause by the Jurisdiction or the County at any time upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party.

12. Electronic Signatures
Both County and the Jurisdiction wish to permit this MOU and future documents relating to this MOU to be digitally signed in accordance with California law and County’s Electronic Signature Administrative Memo. Any party to this MOU may revoke such agreement to permit electronic signatures at any time in relation to all future documents by providing notice pursuant to this Agreement.

13. Authority

6.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383) 7 The parties warrant that the signatories to the MOU have the authority to bind their respective entities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, have affixed their hands.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
By: ____________________________ Date: __________________________ Jasneet W. Sharma
Director, Sustainability Department

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________ Kevin Woodhouse
City Manager

6.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Pacifica Compost Program Template MOU 01232026 (6132 : Approval of MOU with the County of San Mateo for SB 1383)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/23/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan, to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 sq. ft. detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct a public hearing and: (1) introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” (2) adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and (3) find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504(Class 4-“Minor Alteration to Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

STAFF CONTACT:

James Lin, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Project Overview
The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Cape Breton, as shown in Figure 1, and is comprised of two parcels that total approximately 835,400 square feet, or 19.17 acres (82,400 square feet on APN 022-320-200 and 755,000 square feet on APN 018- 170-060). The site sits uphill at the top of Cape Breton Drive. The average slope across the entire site is approximately

52.3 percent. The project site was first developed in the 1970s, prior to that the site was undeveloped. Two single-family homes, one covered arena, and six nonhazardous storage buildings are currently existing on the subject site.

Figure One: Project Site
7 Packet Pg. 324
Pacifica City Council 2
February 23, 2026
The project site has a Hillside Preservation District (“HPD”) overlay on both parcels. The City’s Municipal Code requires that a property owner of property within the HPD obtain certain legislative approvals prior to undertaking any development, which includes grading.

Because of the HPD designation of the site, the proposed project involves a Rezone (RZ-211- 22), Development Plan (DP-87-22), and Specific Plan (SP-180-22) to allow for continued singlefamily residential use of the existing residence and associated improvements. In order to comply with the parking requirements in Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2259(a), the applicant proposes to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation in order to comply with the covered parking requirements for single-family residential use.

Project Background
On May 20, 2021, the City issued a Declaration of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate (“NOV”) relating to illegal grading that had occurred on the property through the removal of sand/soil without a necessary grading permit. The grading that was undertaken by the applicant involved removing sand/soil from the Covered Horse Arena to areas outside of the Covered Arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100 to 300 cubic yards. The Owners of 650 Cape Breton Drive, Iglesia Ni Cristo (“INC”), filed a timely appeal and an administrative hearing was held on August 10, 2021. After conducting the hearing, the hearing officer issued a Decision and Order of Public Nuisance Hearing Officer and Notice of Intent to Abate (“Order”) on August 18, 2021, upholding the City’s NOV and concluding that grading, as defined by the City’s municipal code (PMC 9-4.2252(k), did occur on the property without the required grading permit.
7 Packet Pg. 325
Pacifica City Council 3
February 23, 2026
The Hearing Officer, through the Order, directed that INC do the following:

1. Install erosion control measures such as, but not limited to, silt fences, gravel bags, or straw wattles to contain soil piles in their current locations to the satisfaction of the Building Official; and

2. Limit the use of the Covered Arena to its occupancy classification and subject to approval by the Building Official; and

3. Refrain from any additional grading or removal of sand/soil from the property and to obtain a grading permit for the illegal grading/sand relocation that occurred on the Property as set forth in the NOV no later than May 30, 2022.

INC requested more time to file the necessary land use applications to obtain the grading permit required by the Order. The City and INC entered into an agreement to extend the deadline (Attachment J- “Agreement”). The Agreement set forth the agreed upon terms and obligations relating to compliance with the provisions of the Order and extended the May 30, 2022, deadline. The application was subsequently filed by the agreed upon date.

As discussed above, because the parcel is located in the HPD, a grading permit could not be issued until the applicant obtained a zoning reclassification to Planned Development (P-D) District. This reclassification required the preparation of a Development Plan, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2205 and a Specific Plan to authorize the grading work, pursuant to PMC Section 9-

4.2208. The Agreement required the applicant to submit applications for a P-D designation and a Specific Plan to permit single-family residential use of the existing residence. The proposed uses include those typically associated with single-family residential use, such as home occupations, as outlined on pages 2-5 of Attachment J to the Agreement.

The project would retroactively authorize the grading that occurred at the site with all soil management activities conducted on-site and no removal to an off-site location. Exposed soil areas would be hydroseeded for erosion control.

REQUIRED APPROVALS
The proposed project requires the following three approvals provided in the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC):

1. Rezoning: The project requires changing the zoning classification of sites APN 022-320- 220 (R-1) and site APN 018-170-060 (C-R) to P-D (Planned Development) to allow for continued single-family residential uses on the site. Because Rezoning is a legislative action, the City Council must take final action on the request under state law and the PMC.

2. Development Plan: The project requires a development plan as part of the rezoning to identify the uses that would permitted in the P-D District. The proposed development plan would allow for continued single-family residential use of the existing residence and associated improvements. Because a Development Plan approval is legislative action, the City Council must take final action on the request under the PMC.

3. Specific Plan: The project requires a specific plan pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2210, for grading in the P-D district. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the specific plan, however, since the legislative actions also require the specific plan, the Council must consider this entitlement as well. The approval or denial of a Specific Plan is normally within the discretion of the Planning Commission; however, if the City Council approves the legislative permits, the Council should also consider the Specific Plan in order to approve the project as a whole.

Rezoning (RZ-211-22)
7 Packet Pg. 326
Pacifica City Council 4
February 23, 2026
The project site is located within the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential/Hillside Preservation District) zoning district and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District). In accordance with PMC section 9-4.2256, which addresses development procedures and standards in the HPD overlay district, the development proposal would require changing the zoning classification to a P-D (Planned Development) district to allow for land disturbance in the form of site grading. The rezoning would not change the HPD zoning of the site and the resulting zoning classification would be P-D/HPD.

The rezoning is required under PMC Section 9-4.2256 to allow for land disturbance in the form of site grading. Reclassification to P-D within the HPD overlay must occur through the Planned Development process, which requires approval of a Development Plan and Specific Plan.

During the Planning Commission meetings, there was significant discussion about why rezoning was required for the grading on the site and whether there was an alternative to rezoning that the could use to obtain the grading permit. Staff has researched this issue and has not identified any alternative to the requirements in PMC 9-4.2256. Because the site is located in the HPD, the applicant must change the zoning classification to a P-D district to allow for land disturbance in the form of site grading. The discussion of the findings for approval of the Rezoning may be found under the Discussion of Findings in this staff report.

Development Plan (DP-87-22)
Reclassification to P-D in the HPD requires simultaneous approval of a Development Plan, which sets forth permitted uses within the P-D zoned area. The development plan for the project would allow the continuation of single family uses and associated accessory uses, similar to the existing R-1 zoning. The project does not propose any changes of use, as the site is developed with single-family residences and non-hazardous storage buildings. The proposed carport that is required to conform to the current requirement for two covered parking spaces is typical and accessory to the residential use. The discussion of the findings for approval of the Development Plan may be found under the Discussion of Findings in this staff report.

Specific Plan (SP 180-22)
Together, the Development Plan and Specific Plan provide site-specific development standards and establish the framework for permitted land uses, circulation, and grading, consistent with the intent of the Planned Development and HPD overlay districts.

The project does not propose an intensification of use or any new structures aside from the prefabricated carport to satisfy covered parking requirements. It is intended to bring the property into conformance with zoning regulations while allowing for continued residential use and potential accessory uses consistent with single-family residential zoning, such as home occupations. The discussion of the findings for approval of the Specific Plan may be found under the Discussion of Findings in this staff report.

The draft resolution includes condition of approval #2 to stipulate that any changes in use not specifically authorized by this Specific Plan SP 180-22, Rezoning RZ-211-22, and Development Plan DP-87-22, shall be prohibited unless any modifications to the current uses authorized by Specific Plan SP 180-22 are processed and approved by the City.

Discussion of Findings by Staff
The reasons for a Rezoning, and the findings required for approval of a Development Plan and Specific Plan are included in Sections A -C.

A. Rezoning (RZ-211-22)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2256, the project would require changing the zoning classification of sites APN 022-320-200 (R-1) and site APN 018-170-060 (C-R) to P-D (Planned 7 Packet Pg. 327
Pacifica City Council 5
February 23, 2026
Development) with a Development Plan for the site as depicted in the project plans. The Commission must provide a written recommendation to the Council on the rezoning. Such recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendations and shall be transmitted to the Council in the form of a resolution. Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Commission at a public hearing. In this case, as discussed below, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning and Development Plan.

The rezoning of the project site to P-D (Planned Development) from R-1 and C-R would occur in the same ordinance as the Development Plan approval. The reasoning provided for the Development Plan approval recommendation, as described below, are hereby incorporated by reference as the reasoning for recommended approval of the rezoning.

B. Development Plan (DP-87-22)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2206, the following findings can be made for the establishment of the Development Plan:
(a) The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant.

Findings
The applicant’s proposed project does not involve new construction or demolition of existing structures, and therefore the scope of work is limited in nature and easily achievable within the time schedule submitted by the applicant. To comply with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2259(a), the applicant proposes to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation, as shown in the project plans (plans entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA” prepared February 19, 2025).

Because the proposed carport exceeds 120 square feet, a building permit will be required prior to installation. The applicant has indicated that the carport would be installed within 90 days of project approval. Given the minor scope of work, the limited permitting requirements, and the applicant’s proposed schedule, staff finds that the project can be substantially completed in a timely manner consistent with the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.2259(a). (b) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.

Findings
The project does not include any demolition of existing structures and no new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport. The site is already developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements, and the current configuration has demonstrated the ability to function independently and compatibly within the surrounding neighborhood.

The project’s intent is to bring the existing development into conformance with zoning requirements through the Planned Development process. The continued use of the site for single-family residential purposes is consistent with the character of the area and provides an environment of sustained desirability and stability. No physical or operational changes are proposed that would adversely affect this objective. Therefore, staff finds that the existing development can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained. (c) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts. 7 Packet Pg. 328
Pacifica City Council 6
February 23, 2026
Findings
The existing site already contains existing structures for residential use as well as a covered arena previously utilized for equestrian purposes and other non-hazardous storage buildings.

The site is bordered by single-family residences along Cape Breton Drive to the west and undeveloped agriculturally zoned land to the north, east, and south of the site.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed single-family residential use on the subject site will be consistent with the existing developed area on and around the project site; would not be detrimental to any potential future development surrounding the site; and, would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and would have a beneficial effect on the same which would not be achieved through other zoning districts. The approval of the project does not authorize any improvements or development beyond those specifically authorized by Specific Plan SP 180-22, Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22.

Thus, The approval of this project would bring the property into compliance with the building code requirements by allowing the applicant to obtain the retroactive grading permit and would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
(d) The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.

Findings
There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. Access onto the project site is from the eastern terminus of Cape Breton Drive.

Cape Breton Drive is an existing residential street characterized by single-family residences. No new streets are proposed with the project. As there would not be significant additional densities and traffic from the proposed project, as there is no new construction of residences as part of this project, staff finds that the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.
(e) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.

Findings
The application proposes to rezone from R-1 and C-R to P-D. The proposed project also includes the reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan process in order to permit the land disturbance pursuant to PMC Section 9-

4.2256.

The surrounding neighborhood is substantially developed with single-family residences. The sizeable land area that is not developed is the Sweeney Ridge portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which is northeast of the project site and is owned by the Federal government and outside the City’s jurisdiction for planning and zoning.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the area surrounding the project site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development. There is no proposed new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport and no demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. The approval of this project would bring the property into compliance with the building code requirements by allowing the applicant to obtain the 7 Packet Pg. 329
Pacifica City Council 7
February 23, 2026
retroactive grading permit. The uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan, in that they are principally residential in nature.
(f) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan
Findings
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and its policies that are intended to continue to implement the requirements of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), including submission of siting and grading plans.

The applicant is taking the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), including the submission of siting and grading plans, in order to apply for a retroactive grading permit for the previously unpermitted grading work. This staff finds that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, as discussed above. (g) Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area.

1. Any exception from the standard district requirement is warranted by the design Of The Project And Amenities Incorporated In The Development Plan.

Findings
No commercial development or any new construction or demolition of existing buildings are proposed; therefore, staff find that these findings are not applicable. (h) The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

Findings
There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the existing foundation. Therefore, staff finds that the finding is not applicable.

C. Specific Plan (SP-180-22)
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2209, the City Council shall approve a specific plan only upon making the following findings:
(a) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.

Findings
An approved development plan contains a list of approved uses for an area with P-D zoning.

The approved uses in a development plan are implemented with approval of one or more specific plans which specify the site layout, architectural design, and other detailed parameters of individual projects proposed for construction. The application for the proposed project includes the development plan and the specific plan together. Staff finds that the Specific Plan would allow the existing single-family residential uses and uses such as home occupations, in accordance with the PMC provisions in order to obtain a retroactive grading permit and is consistent with the Development Plan.
(b) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines Findings
There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the 7 Packet Pg. 330
Pacifica City Council 8
February 23, 2026
existing foundation. The carport is being proposed by the applicant to meet the covered parking requirements as part of the PMC. Sec 9-4.2259(a). Therefore, staff finds that the finding is not applicable.

Planning Commission Review and Recommendation for Denial The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed project on August 4, 2025, and November 17, 2025. At the public hearing on November 17, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council disapproval of the Specific Plan SP180-22 (“Development Permit”), and to recommend City Council denial of Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 (“Legislative Approvals”) by adopting Resolution No. 2025- 016 (Attachment C). The minutes from the Planning Commission hearings on August 4, 2025, and November 17, 2025, are included as Attachment E and Attachment F, respectively.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council, in its capacity as the legislative body of the City and in the exercise of its police power under the California Constitution, may consider and approve legislative actions on behalf of the City. The City Council is not bound by specific findings when approving legislative items, and may consider all information relevant to the public health, safety, and welfare of persons within the City.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Written public comments received from public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission made be found in Attachment G and H. Public comments received following noticing ahead of the February 23, 2026, City Council hearing up until February 11, 2026 may be found in Attachment I.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis supports that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 1 (“Existing Facilities Section 15301(e)), Class 4 (“Minor Alteration to Land” 15404(a)) and the Common Sense Exemption (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)).

Class 1, “Existing Facilities,” consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.

Examples include but are not limited to:
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
The subject proposal would allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit.

While all existing structures and buildings on site remain, the proposed project includes the 7 Packet Pg. 331
Pacifica City Council 9
February 23, 2026
installation of an 8-foot tall, 20-by-20 foot prefabricated carport in order to comply with the covered parking requirements as part of the PMC. Sec 9-4.2259(a). This would be a negligible expansion of existing use to allow a 400-square-foot carport to be installed on the site.

Class 4, “Minor Alteration to Land” consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist.

The subject proposal for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property would allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The approximate volume of the relocated soil taken from the covered arena is 100-300 cubic yards.

The average slope of where the unpermitted grading took place is calculated at 0 percent.

Because the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 4 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply; there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

Additionally, the project would be exempt under the Common Sense exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Here, the proposed project is for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property would allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The P-D and Specific Plan approvals would not have a significant effect on the environment as they are administrative actions. The grading that was undertaken by the applicant involved removing sand/soil from the Covered Arena to areas outside of the Covered Arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100-300 cubic yards, which also would not have a significant effect on the environment as the amount is relatively minor and the location from the covered arena to outside the covered arena would not have a significant effect on the environment.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Development Permit and Legislative Approvals would enable the applicants to retroactively obtain a grading permit to approve previous land disturbance, obtain building permit to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing singlefamily residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation to comply with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2259(a), and comply with the Order issued on August 18, 2021.

Staff has conducted the necessary analysis in addition to concerns raised by the Planning Commission and determined that, as conditioned, the project would satisfy all zoning regulations and applicable development standards and would be consistent with the General Plan. The project would result in a rezone from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD to P-D/HPD. The rezone is intended to support the reclassification within the HPD overlay in order to allow land disturbance through site grading. Rezoning within the HPD overlay can only be reclassified through the Planned Development process, which involves the approval of a Development Plan 7 Packet Pg. 332
Pacifica City Council 10 February 23, 2026
and Specific Plan to allow for single-family residential use. The rezoning only authorizes the existing residential land uses and potential accessory uses consistent with single-family residential zoning. The Development Plan and Specific Plan only authorize the retroactive grading permit. The project does not propose an intensification of use any new structures other than the carport that is required to comply with the covered parking requirements for the existing residential use. Any future development of the site beyond residential use would require future approval through the same process. A condition of approval has been included to specify that requirement.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve Rezoning (RZ-211-22), Development Plan (DP-87-22), and Specific Plan (SP-180-22).

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may deny the requested Legislative Approvals, which would have the effect of denying the overall project.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Review of the proposed resolution and ordinance is not directly associated with a City Council goal or an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. Serving in a legislative capacity is a routine function of the City Council as part of its normal governance process as established in the Pacifica Municipal Code and in State Law.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact. Processing costs for this item are paid by the applicant.

ORIGINATED BY:

Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial(PDF) Attachment D - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (PDF) Attachment F - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20251117 (PDF) Attachment G - Combined_Public Comments_650 Cape Breton_Item 4_Before_Noon_08042025 (PDF)
Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (PDF)
Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (PDF) Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (PDF) Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (PDF)
Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 333
4907-1257-9983 v1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP-87-22 AND REZONING RZ-211-22 TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P-D) ZONING DISTRICT WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200).

WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022-037)(“Project”); and WHEREAS, development in the HPD requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the Commission’s recommendation of Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-016 recommending denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommending disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87- 22) with a 5-0 vote, which negated the need to make findings for disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180- 22) and negated the needed to make a CEQA determination; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on February 23, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporates all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting the City Council of the City of Pacifica introduced Ordinance No. ###.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds in the exercise of its independent judgement that the Project qualifies for a Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”) and Class 4 (“Minor Alteration of Land”) Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15304, respectively, and that none of the exceptions to application of an exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines

7.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 4907-1257-9983 v1
Section 15061(b)(3), where it is clear that there’s no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

The analysis of the application of the CEQA exemptions is set forth more fully in Resolution No. XX-2026.

Section 3. Initiate Rezoning. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.3502(b), the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby initiate rezoning to the P-D zoning district for 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200), as provided in Exhibit A (Proposed Zoning Map), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. Findings. The City Council hereby makes and adopts its own findings in support of approval for Rezoning RZ-211-22 to change the zoning classification of the site from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD to PD/HPD (Planned Development with Hillside Preservation District Overlay) from the existing zoning classifications, and approval of Development Plan DP-87-22, based on the following findings required by PMC Section 9-4.2206:
(1) The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant.

The applicant’s proposed project does not involve new construction or demolition of existing structures, and therefore, the scope of work is limited in nature and easily achievable within a short timeframe. To comply with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2259(a), the applicant proposes to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing singlefamily residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation, as shown in the project plans (plans entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA” prepared February 19, 2025).

Because the proposed carport exceeds 120 square feet, a building permit will be required prior to installation. The applicant has indicated that the carport would be installed within 90 days of project approval. Given the minor scope of work, the limited permitting requirements, and the applicant’s proposed schedule, the City Council finds that the project can be substantially completed in a timely manner consistent with the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.2259(a). (2) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.

The project does not include any demolition of existing structures and no new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport. The site is already developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements, and the current configuration has demonstrated the ability to function independently and compatibly within the surrounding neighborhood.

The project’s intent is to bring the existing development into conformance with zoning requirements through the Planned Development process. The continued use of the site for singlefamily residential purposes is consistent with the character of the area and provides an environment of sustained desirability and stability. No physical or operational changes are proposed that would adversely affect this objective. Therefore, the City Council finds that the existing development can continue to function independently and maintain long-term compatibility with its surroundings.

7.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 4907-1257-9983 v1
(3) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.

The existing site already contains existing structures for residential use as well as a covered arena previously utilized for equestrian purposes and other non-hazardous storage buildings. The site is bordered by single-family residences along Cape Breton Drive to the west and undeveloped agriculturally zoned land to the north, east, and south of the site.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed single-family residential use on the subject site will be consistent with the existing developed area on and around the project site; would not be detrimental to any potential future development surrounding the site; and, would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and would have a beneficial effect on the same which would not be achieved through other zoning districts. The approval of the project does not authorize any improvements or development beyond those specifically authorized by Specific Plan SP 180- 22, Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22. Thus, the approval of this project would bring the property into compliance with the building code requirements by allowing the applicant to obtain the retroactive grading permit and would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
(4) The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.

There is no proposed new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport and no demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. Access onto the project site is from the eastern terminus of Cape Breton Drive. Cape Breton Drive is an existing residential street characterized by singlefamily residences. No new streets are proposed with the project. As there would no significant additional densities and traffic from the proposed project, as there is no new construction of residences as part of this project, the City Council finds that the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District. (5) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.

The application proposes to rezone from R-1 and C-R to P-D. The proposed project also includes the reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan process in order to permit the land disturbance pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2256.

The surrounding neighborhood is substantially developed with single-family residences. The sizeable land area that is not developed is the Sweeney Ridge portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which is northeast of the project site and is owned by the Federal government and outside the City’s jurisdiction for planning and zoning.

7.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 4907-1257-9983 v1
Therefore, the City Council finds that the area surrounding the project site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development. There is no proposed new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport and no demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. The approval of this project would bring the property into compliance with the building code requirements by allowing the applicant to obtain the retroactive grading permit. The uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan, as they are principally residential in nature.

The Local Coastal Plan is not applicable to this project as it is not located in the Coastal Zone. (6) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.

The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and its policies that are intended to continue to implement the requirements of the HPD, including submission of siting and grading plans.

The applicant is taking the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the HPD, including the submission of siting and grading plans, in order to apply for a retroactive grading permit for the previously unpermitted grading work. Therefore, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
(7) Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area. a. Any exception from the standard district requirement is warranted by the design of the project and amenities incorporated in the development plan.

No commercial development or any new construction or demolition of existing buildings are proposed; therefore, the City Council finds that these findings are not applicable. (8) The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the existing foundation. Therefore, this finding is not applicable and the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines.

Section 5. Development Plan. The Development Plan DP-87-22 for the project site is hereby approved, which shall be implemented through a development more particularly set forth in a specific plan approved in accordance with Article 22 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, shall be as set forth in the following Table 1:

7.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 4907-1257-9983 v1
TABLE 1
Standards Approved
Permitted Uses • Single Family Residential Use and Other Uses Consistent with Single-Family Residential Use, such as
home occupations, in accordance with Pacifica
Municipal Code.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit(s) and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit(s) as allowed by Pacifica Municipal Code
Lot Area • 82,400 square feet (APN 022-320-200)
• 755,000 square feet (APN 018-170-060)
Any uses beyond those specifically authorized by Development Plan DP-87-22 must be approved by the City.

Section 6. Reclassification. Section Map G7 of the Zoning Map of the City of Pacifica, as described in Section 9-4.302 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, is hereby amended as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto. The reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan process to permit land disturbance consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2256 does not alter the existing HPD zoning applicable to the site which shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. Expiration. The approval of Development Plan DP-87-22 and Rezoning RZ-211-22 conferred in this Ordinance shall not expire unless and until this Ordinance is repealed.

Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 9. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published once in the San Mateo Daily Journal, a newspaper of general circulation and is adjudicated to publish legal and public notices throughout San Mateo County, including the City of Pacifica, California.

Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective 30 days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law.
* * * * *

7.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 4907-1257-9983 v1
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on February 23, 2026, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica held on ____________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

7.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 4907-1257-9983 v1
Exhibit A
C-R/HPD to P-D/HPD
R-1/HPD to P-D/HPD

7.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment A - Ordinance (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN SP-180-22 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO

PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256 AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170- 060, 022-320-200); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
(FILE NO. 2022-037)
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Patrick Lam, ENGO Incorporated (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022- 037)(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential /Hillside Preservation District) and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the City Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District requires approval of a Specific Plan prior to issuance of a retroactive grading permit because development in the P-D district must demonstrate proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses, per PMC Section 9-4.2210; and WHEREAS, once the Project is approved, issuance of a building permit for installation of a prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence would be required to comply with PMC Section 9-4.2259(a); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-016 recommendation of denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommendation of disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87-22), which negated the need to make findings for

7.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-2
disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180-22) and negated the needed to make a CEQA determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on February 23, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporates all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the City Council of the City of Pacifica introduced an ordinance to approve Development Plan DP-87-22 and Rezoning RZ-211-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) Zoning District with a Development Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

B. 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 of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the Project qualifies for Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301(e) and 15304(a), respectively, and the Common Sense Exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as described below, applies to the Project:

The Project is categorically exempt as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) and 15304(a), as described below:
15301(e) Existing Facilities
Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. Examples include but are not limited to:
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
The subject proposal will allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. While all existing structures and buildings on site remain, the proposed project includes the installation of an 8-foot tall, 20 by 20-foot prefabricated carport in order to comply with the covered parking requirements as part of the PMC Sec 9-4.2259(a). This would be a negligible expansion of existing use to allow a carport to be installed on the site.
15304(a) Minor Alterations to Land

7.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-3
Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist.

The subject proposal for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property would allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The approximate volume of the relocated soil taken from the covered arena is 100-300 cubic yards. The average slope of where the unpermitted grading took place is calculated at 0 percent.

Because the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 4 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as described below:

CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The proposed project is for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property will allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The P-D and Specific Plan approvals would not have a significant effect on the environment as they are administrative actions. The grading that was undertaken by the applicant involved removing sand/soil from the covered arena to areas outside of the covered arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100- 300 cubic yards, which also would not have a significant effect on the environment as the amount is relatively minor and the location from the covered arena to outside the covered arena would not have a significant effect on the environment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-180-22, pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) section 9-4.2209:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.

An approved development plan contains a list of approved uses for an area with P-D zoning. The approved uses in a development plan are implemented with approval of one or more specific plans which specify the site layout, architectural design, and other detailed parameters of individual projects proposed for construction. The application for the proposed project includes the development plan and the specific plan together.

The City Council finds that the Development Plan would allow the existing single-family residential uses and uses such as home occupations, in accordance with the PMC

7.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-4
provisions in order to obtain a retroactive grading permit and is consistent with the Development Plan, that is being approved concurrently with this Specific Plan. (2) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the existing foundation. Therefore, the Commission finds that the finding is not applicable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the Specific Plan SP180-22, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated into this resolution by reference.
* * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

7.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-5
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval:

SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-180-22) TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL USE AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE HPD OVERLAY TO

PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256. (FILE NO. 2022-037)
City Council Meeting of February 23, 2026
Planning Division of the Community Development Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA” prepared February 19, 2025, and attached to the November 17, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. Any improvements not identified in the plans set entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA,” prepared February 19, 2025, or changes in use not specifically authorized by this Specific Plan SP 180-22, Rezoning RZ-211-22, and Development Plan DP-87-22, shall be prohibited unless any modifications to the current uses authorized by Specific Plan SP 180-22 are processed and approved by the City.

3. Prior to issuance of a grading and building permit, the City Council of the City of Pacifica shall approve the Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22.

4. 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 grading and building permit application.

5. Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction prior to the issuance of a retroactive grading permit and building permit for the proposed carport.

6. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

7. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its 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

7.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-6
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.

8. The approval of Specific Plan SP-180-22 (“Development Permits”) is contingent on the City Council’s approval of Development Plan DP-87-22 . The City Council’s approval of the Development Permits shall take effect on and shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. For the purposes of this Resolution, “final determination” shall mean effective date of the Ordinance approving the Rezoning (RZ211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87-22). 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, at the Community Development Director’s 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. In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the approval or approvals, the Community Development Director may toll the expiration of the approval or approvals during the pendency of such litigation.

Building Division

9. The applicant shall ensure that all materials are stored and maintained in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent potential violations.

10. The applicant shall obtain a retroactive grading permit for the previously unpermitted grading work within 90 days of project approval. The permit application shall include soil treatment measures consistent with the plans titled "650 Cape Breton Dr PostConstruction Site Plan, Pacifica, California," prepared on February 19, 2025. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Building Official.

11. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within 90 days of project approval and install the detached carport in accordance with the design, dimensions, and specifications approved by the Planning Commission. Any modifications to the approved design shall require review and approval by the Community Development Director, or as otherwise required by the Planning Commission.

Engineering Division

12. Any Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water

7.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-7
Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the project plans.

13. The improvements shall be consistent with the plans approved by, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Conditions of Approval. All construction shall meet the latest California Building Code, California Fire Code, City of Pacifica Municipal Code and the City Standard Specifications and Drawings. Securities for all required improvements, and applicable fees and charges, shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain all required permits before commencing work. All required improvements shall be constructed at no cost to the City except where specifically agreed to by the City under the provisions of a written agreement. Grading and improvement plan review and approval by the City Engineer are required before any City Permit is issued. The improvement plans shall include details for on‐site and off‐site improvements for vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, traffic signs and markings, utility service connections, modifications and extension of the City’s sewer, storm drain, safety lighting, landscaping, and other public service and common facilities. All utility services shall be underground unless otherwise approved. Said improvements shall conform to City of Pacifica and affected Agency’s standards.

14. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Cape Breton Drive. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.

15. Existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to 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. ***END***

7.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Resolution (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-016

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

PACIFICA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING RZ-211-22 AND
DISAPPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP-87-22; AND
RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN SP-180-22, TO

DENY RECLASSIFICATION OF THE EXISTING HILLSIDE PRESERVATION

DISTRICT (HPD) OVERLAY TO PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE
CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256 AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200)(FILE NO. 2022- 037)
______________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Patrick Lam, ENGO Incorporated (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022- 037)(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential/ Hillside Preservation District) and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the Commission’s recommendation of Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District requires approval of a Specific Plan prior to issuance of a retroactive grading permit because development in the P-D district must demonstrate proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses, per PMC Section 9-4.2210; and WHEREAS, once the Project is approved, issuance of a building permit for installation of a prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence would be required to comply with PMC Section 9-4.2259(a); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make findings for recommending the City Council to enact an ordinance approving Rezoning (RZ-211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87-22) and approving Specific Plan (SP-180-22) during the August 4, 2025 meeting and continued the item to date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025 (continued from the August 4, 2025, meeting), at which time

7.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-2
it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and a recommendation of denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommendation of disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87-22), which negated the need to make findings for disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180-22) was made by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, because the Planning Commission could not make certain findings to support the Project, no determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is necessary, as CEQA does not apply to projects in which a public agency rejects or disapproves per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15270(a).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica as follows:

A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

B. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does not need any review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as CEQA does not apply to projects in which a public agency rejects or disapproves per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15270(a), “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.” Therefore, this action recommending denial of the Project approvals is exempt from CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica recommends that the City Council deny approval of Rezoning RZ-211-22 to the City Council to change the zoning classification of the site from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD to P-D/HPD (Planned Development with Hillside Preservation District Overlay) from the existing zoning classifications, and further recommends disapproval of Development Plan DP-87-22, because the Planning Commission was unable to make the following findings required by PMC Section 9-4.2206 for the reasons set forth below:
(1) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.

The proposed project does not create an environment of sustained desirability and stability and does not provide adequate assurance that objectives for development would be attained. The benefit of the corrective grading action does not equate to a sustained outcome.
(2) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.

The grading has had detrimental effects to surrounding uses, has altered the land and altered the drainage on the property, and has created potential hazardous

7.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) A-3
effects. The rezoning to P-D would not have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
(3) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.

The proposed development does not align with the intent of the P-D District in PMC section 9-4.2202 because the project is not substantially compatible with the surrounding uses.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica was unable to make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-180-22:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.

Because the findings for the Development Plan cannot be made, the Specific Plan cannot be approved and this finding cannot be made.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby recommends that the City Council deny enactment of an ordinance rezoning RZ-211-22 and recommends disapproval of Development Plan DP-87-22; and recommends disapproval of the Specific Plan SP-180-22 to deny reclassification of the existing Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2256.

* * * * *
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 17th day of November 2025.

AYES, Commissioner Hauser, Devine, Godwin, Redfield, Davis NOES, None
ABSENT, Commissioner Berman, Ferguson
ABSTAIN, None
______________________________
Samantha Hauser, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Samantha Updegrave, Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
Community Development Director

7.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  [email protected] www.engeo.com
Project No.
20844.000.001
February 24, 2025
Mr. Mike Janusek, AICP
Planner, City of Pacifica
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
Subject: Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC)
650 Cape Breton Drive
Pacifica, California
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – CITY OF PACIFICA
Dear Mr. Janusek:

On behalf of Iglesia Ni Cristo and the owners of 650 Cape Breton Drive located in Pacifica, California, ENGEO is submitting the following response to comments in response to the City of Pacifica's Request for Additional Information dated February 12, 2025. For completeness of the record, we have restated City of Pacifica Building Department comments in italics, followed by our responses. Comments 1-11, and 15 were resolved in previous submissions.

Comment 12
Proposed parking plans.
a. 4/8/2024: Please confirm that the minimum unobstructed dimensions within the proposed carport shall be 9 feet wide X 19 feet long for each parking space. b. 10/18/2024: Please clarify the location of the carport and clarify the use of detail 9 and 10.

The plans indicate two single family residences but Appendix C only includes one floor plan and one photograph of a residence.
c. 2/12/2025: Option 2 does not include a height dimension. Provide a height dimension for Option 2.

ENGEO Response to Comment 12
The height dimension for Option 2 is 10 feet. Appendix C has been updated to include height dimensions for all carport options.

Comment 13
Proposed plot plans, showing building locations on the Property, building setbacks, and lot dimensions.
a. 4/8/2024: Please confirm where the existing property line setbacks for the single-family residence are indicated.
b. 10/18/2024: This comment was not addressed. Please provide the setbacks measuring from each building wall line to the property lines.
c. 2/12/2025: Setbacks are measured from the nearest point of each building wall line as opposed to the center of each building wall line. Dimension the front setback of Building 10 on Sheet 2 and revise Sheet 5 to accurately measure setbacks to the nearest point of each building line.

7.d
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) City of Pacifica 20844.000.001
Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), 650 Cape Breton Drive February 24, 2025 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – CITY OF PACIFICA Page 2
ENGEO Response to Comment 13
Sheet 5 of Appendix A has been revised to reflect the setback requirements.

Comment 14
Survey information and other details to confirm compliance with the HPD standards in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 22.5.
a. 4/8/2024: Based on the survey and calculation of maximum allowable HPD coverage shown in the response to Comment 4 in the response letter, please calculate the amount of HPD coverage already used on the project site. Utilized HPD coverage on the site should include all existing buildings (except the single-family residence), plus any paved/graded accessways such as the front entrance and parking areas and other paths through the site, as well as the areas of slope drains at the rear (east) of the site. Then indicate the amount of additional HPD coverage required for the single-family residence and carport. b. 10/18/2024: Thank you for your response to the comment. Please provide the detailed calculation to verify the coverage was calculated correctly. The response does not provide a breakdown of how the HPD formula was calculated and the building area/percentage of total land indicated on Sheet 4 of 5 of Appendix A does not accurately reflect your response to comments.
c. 02/12/25: Thank you for your response to comment and detailed explanation of your lot coverage calculation pursuant to PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 22.5. However, Sheet 4 does not reflect the results of your response. Provide the HDP formula, code citation, and calculation on Sheet 4.

ENGEO Response to Comment 14
Sheet 4 of Appendix A has been revised to include the HPD formula, code citation, and detailed lot overage calculation.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact us and we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Emily Mahon Kevin McFadden, PE
em/kjm/rhb/cb
Attachments: Appendix A – Post-Construction Site Plan – 650 Cape Breton [Revised] Appendix C – Single-Family Residence Floorplan and House Photos

7.d
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844.000.001
February 24, 2025

APPENDIX A
Post-Construction Site Plan – 650 Cape Breton [REVISED]

7.d
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) EJM
NLK
KJM
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
1000 ft
500 ft
500 ft
500 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
1000 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
SITE
0 1000 2000
FEET

PARCEL BOUNDARY

EASEMENTS
0 50 100
FEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
10 00 ft
SITE
1 ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION
CL 30' SDE
5497 O.R. 202
N42°50'01 W
1039.91'
CL 30' SDE
5497 O.R. 202
N26°47'24 E
746.67'
N55°00'11" W
883.49'
S42°50'01" E
220.73'
APN 022-320-200
APN 018-170-060
OWNER:

IGLESIA NI CRISTO
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
APNS: 018-170-060, 022-320-200

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
CIVIL/GEOTECH:

ENGEO, INC.
3890 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
KEVIN McFADDEN
[email protected]
PROJECT CONTACTS:

1. PROJECT INFORMATION

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS/GRADING PLAN

3. DRAINAGE/BMP PLAN

4. LAND USE

5. SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE CONSTRUCTION BMPs
SHEET INDEX:

LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP PARCEL INFORMATION
650 CAPE BRETON DR

POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
SURVEY NOTE: PARCEL BOUNDARY, EASMENT
LOCATION, AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE BASED ON "ALTA/
NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY, 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE,
PACIFICA, CA, 94044" DATED SEPTEMBER 2020

CAPE BRETON DR

GLACIER AVE
52'
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
02/19/2025

7.d
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) EJM
NLK
KJM
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
F
F
F
2 1
3 0 40
FEET

ARENA SOIL - CURRENT LOCATION

ARENA SOIL - ORIGINAL LOCATION

CAR PORT (PROPOSED)
BUILDING 10 PROPERTY SETBACK

F PHOTO LOCATION
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS/GRADING PLAN
CA
P
E
B
R
ETO
N
DRAWINGS DO NOT DEPICT ALL OF THE IN-USE OR ABANDONED UTILITIES PRESENT WITHIN THE WORK AREA.

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD

UTILITIES AS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT. UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT: 811 OR (800) 422-4133 DESIGN CRITERIA:

GRADING NOTES:

UTILITIES NOTES:

Photograph 1 Facing West Photograph 2 Facing South
Photograph 3 Facing West
15'
PREFAB

CARPORT
LOCATION:
2x MINIMUM 9'
WIDTH BY 19'

LENGTH EACH

SANGBAGS
DEBRIS

ARENA SOIL

ARENA SOIL

EXPLANATION
────────────────────────────────────────
*DISPLACED ARENA SOIL. NO ADDITIONAL

EARTHWORK IS PROPOSED
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
-THE PROJECT SCOPE IS ESTABLISHED IN THE "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF 650 CAPE BRETON AUGUST 29, 2022" (AGREEMENT). KEY PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT AS THEY PERTAIN TO THIS PLAN SET ARE AS FOLLOWS:
-INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO HYDROSEED, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAGS, OR STRAW WADDLES TO CONTAIN SOIL PILES IN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION. -LIMIT USE OF THE COVERED ARENA TO ITS OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION. -REFRAIN FROM ADDITIONAL GRADING OR REMOVAL OF SAND/SOIL FROM THE PROPERTY AND TO OBTAIN A GRADING PERMIT FOR THE ILLEGAL GRADING/SAND RELOCATION THAT OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY. -NO ADDITIONAL SOIL RELOCATION/EARTHWORK IS PROPOSED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT. GRADING DEPICTED ON THIS SHEET IS TO OBTAIN A RETROACTIVE GRADING PERMIT. -ARENA SOIL WAS ORIGINALY SPREAD ACROSS THE INTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDING (1) AND WAS APPROXIMATELY 1-3" IN THICKNESS.
-ARENA SOIL WAS RELOCATED INTO PILES AS DEPICTED ON THIS GRADING PLAN. -THE APPROXIMATE VOLUME OF RELOCATED SOIL IS 100 TO 300CY. -BMP MEASURES ARE REQUIRED FOR RELOCATED SOIL (SEE SHEET 3). 20'

7.d
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) EJM
NLK
KJM
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
1 F
3 BMP/DRAINAGE PLAN
- REMOVE DEBRIS FROM EXISTING ARENA SOIL PILES. DEBRIS SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF AT A LEGAL LANDFILL.
- INSPECT EXISTING SANDBAGS FOR SERVICEABILITY (RIPS, TEARS, ETC.) AND REPLACE ANY UNSERVICABLE SANDBAGS. DISPOSE OF UNSERVICABLE SANDBAG FABRIC AT A LEGAL LANDFILL.
- HYDROSEED SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL DENUDED SOIL PILES. ALL SEEDS SHOULD

BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE SEED LAW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. EACH SEED BAG SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE SEALED AND

CLEARLY MARKED AS TO SPECIES, PURITY, PERCENT GERMINATION, DEALER'S GUARANTEE, AND DATES OF TEST.
- THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRRIGATION OF APPLIED HYDROSEED. ALL

HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS TO GROWTH AND HEALTH FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL ACCEPTANCE. AREAS THAT FAIL TO GROW SHALL BE RESEEDED. THE CONTRACTOR IS SUBJECT TO A 60 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD OF THE RESEEDED AREAS.
- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE/TRAINING FOR APPLYING RECOMMENDED BMPS.
- CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES SHALL BE LIMITED TOO DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS.

BMP NOTES:
0 40
FEET

HYDROSEED (EXISTING ARENA
SOIL)

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

EXISTING SAND BAGS FILED WITH
ARENA SOIL; USED AS EROSION

AND/OR SEDIMENT CONTROL

F PHOTO LOCATION

EXISTING SWALES TO MANAGE

HILLSIDE RUNOFF

DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION
Photograph 1 Facing South East

CONCRETE LINED SWALE
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
02/19/2025

7.d
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) EJM
NLK
KJM
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
4 Cape Breton Dr

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION

NON-HAZARDOUS STORAGE

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE

CAR PORT (PROPOSED)
TEMPORARY STRUCTURE;

REMOVED FROM PROPERTY

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

LAND USE
0 40
FEET
SITE

OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL

IN THE OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL (OSAR) DESIGNATION,

RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURE, AND RECREATION USES ARE ALLOWED AT A GROSS DENSITY OF UP TO ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES (OR 0.2 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE). FARM WORKER HOUSING MAY BE PERMITTED ON SITES

ZONED FOR AGRICULTURE USES, CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN DENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR A SITE. THE DENSITY ASSUMED FOR BUILDOUT CALCULATIONS IS 0.15 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE.

LAND USE PER CITY OF PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN 2040 (JULY 2022) NOTE:

THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL (OSAR) BY THE CITY OF PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN. FUTURE LAND USE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO

LAND USE SPECIFIED FOR OSAR AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN AND THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.

Building # Land Use Building Area (ac)
1 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.71
2 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.27
3 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.09
4 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.02
5 Temporary structure; removed from property 0.00
6 Temporary structure; removed from property 0.00
7 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.23
8 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.01
9 Single Family Residence 0.03
10 Single Family Residence 0.04
11 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.00
Proposed Carport 0.01
N/A Open Space 19.29
Total 20.69
Use Area (Acres) Percentage of Total Land
Buildings (Non-Hazardous Storage) 1.33 6.43%
Buildings (Single Family Residence) 0.07 0.34%
Open Space (Impervious) 0.85 4.11%
Open Space (Pervious) 18.44 89.13%
Total 20.69
Table 1: Existing Building Usage
Table 2: Land Coverage
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025

7.d
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) EJM
NLK
KJM
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
5 8
9 7
10 4
1 11
3 2

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION

PROJECT SITE

PARCEL BOUNDARY

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 4
BUILDING 7
BUILDING 8
BUILDING 9
BUILDING 10
BUILDING 11
0 100
FEET

BUILDING OFFSET FROM

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SETBACK DISTANCES BASED ON MEASUREMENTS
TAKEN FROM PROVIDED "ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE
SURVEY, 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE, PACIFICA, CA,
94044". MEASUREMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE
METHOD USED.

Building ID North East South West
1 463 532 242 117
2 438 605 433 330
3 362 529 489 526
4 401 562 516 573
7 728 510 318 306
8 763 652 142 105
9 468 714 337 22
10 409 710 338 20
11 406 644 488 192
Building Setback Measurements (Feet)

7.d
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025

7.d
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844.000.001
February 24, 2025

APPENDIX C
Single-Family Residence Floorplan and House Photos [REVISED]

7.d
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 650 Cape Breton

CREATED ON
2023-06-26

DETAILS
Total area: 1571.02 sq ft
Living area: 1571.02 sq ft
Floors: 1
Rooms: 14

THIS FLOORPLAN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. SENSOPIA

DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY INCLUDING,

WITHOUT LIMITATION, SATISFACTORY QUALITY
OR ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS.
0' 2' 4' 6'
1:56
▼ 1st Floor TOTAL AREA: 1571.02 sq ft • LIVING AREA: 1571.02 sq ft • ROOMS: 14 6' 4 3/4"
12' 8 1/2"
12' 4
3/4"
6' 2 1/4"
10' 3"
3' 4
3/4" 7' 5"
13' 3"
3' 9" 6' 6"
19' 4 1/2"
3' 9" 8' 2 1/2" 3' 9"
19' 4 1/2"
3' 10" 3' 9 1/4" 3' 10 1/2"
11' 5 3/4"
4' 9 3/4"
8' 6 1/4"
5' 8" 4' 10"
12' 11 1/4"
10'
12' 11 1/4"
2' 5" 4' 10 1/2"
10' 2 3/4"
4'
Bedroom
157.62 sq ft (12' 8 1/2" × 12' 5")
Bathroom
163.96 sq ft (12' 8" × 13' 3")
Living Room
507.34 sq ft (19' 4 3/4" × 26' 2 1/4")
Kitchen
148.75 sq ft (11' 5 3/4" × 12' 11 1/2")
Laundry Room

63.66 sq ft (8' 6 1/4" × 7' 5 3/4")
Bathroom

40.82 sq ft (8' 3/4" × 5' 3/4")
Hallway

36.72 sq ft
Bedroom
129.38 sq ft (10' × 12' 11 1/4")
Bedroom
132.31 sq ft (10' 2 3/4" × 12' 11 1/4")
Closet

14.58 sq ft
4' 2 1/2" × 4'
Closet

14.61 sq ft
4' 1/4" × 4' 2 1/2"
Closet

24.85 sq ft (6' 7" × 4' 8")
Storage

6.96 sq ft
3' 4 1/4" × 2' 3/4"
Storage

6.90 sq ft
3' 3 3/4" × 2' 1"
Appendix C - Single-Family Residence Floor Plan and House Photos Bedrooms: 3 Building Height: 13.18'

7.d
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 650 Cape Breton

CREATED ON
2023-06-26

DETAILS
Total area: 1571.02 sq ft
Living area: 1571.02 sq ft
Floors: 1
Rooms: 14

THIS FLOORPLAN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. SENSOPIA

DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY INCLUDING,

WITHOUT LIMITATION, SATISFACTORY QUALITY
OR ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS.
0' 2' 4' 6'
1:56
▼ 1st Floor TOTAL AREA: 1571.02 sq ft • LIVING AREA: 1571.02 sq ft • ROOMS: 14 6' 4 3/4"
12' 8 1/2"
12' 4
3/4"
6' 2 1/4"
10' 3"
3' 4
3/4" 7' 5"
13' 3"
3' 9" 6' 6"
19' 4 1/2"
3' 9" 8' 2 1/2" 3' 9"
19' 4 1/2"
3' 10" 3' 9 1/4" 3' 10 1/2"
11' 5 3/4"
4' 9 3/4"
8' 6 1/4"
5' 8" 4' 10"
12' 11 1/4"
10'
12' 11 1/4"
2' 5" 4' 10 1/2"
10' 2 3/4"
4'
Bedroom
157.62 sq ft (12' 8 1/2" × 12' 5")
Bathroom
163.96 sq ft (12' 8" × 13' 3")
Living Room
507.34 sq ft (19' 4 3/4" × 26' 2 1/4")
Kitchen
148.75 sq ft (11' 5 3/4" × 12' 11 1/2")
Laundry Room

63.66 sq ft (8' 6 1/4" × 7' 5 3/4")
Bathroom

40.82 sq ft (8' 3/4" × 5' 3/4")
Hallway

36.72 sq ft
Bedroom
129.38 sq ft (10' × 12' 11 1/4")
Bedroom
132.31 sq ft (10' 2 3/4" × 12' 11 1/4")
Closet

14.58 sq ft
4' 2 1/2" × 4'
Closet

14.61 sq ft
4' 1/4" × 4' 2 1/2"
Closet

24.85 sq ft (6' 7" × 4' 8")
Storage

6.96 sq ft
3' 4 1/4" × 2' 3/4"
Storage

6.90 sq ft
3' 3 3/4" × 2' 1"
TOTAL AREA: 1571.02 sq ft
RAMP
STAIRS 10' 6"
19'

CONCRETE
FOOTINGS (TYP.)
Deck Information:
1) 19' W x 10'6" D x 2'4" to 3'5" H
2) Handrails approx. 38" above treads
3) Guardrails approx 42" above deck
4) Six concrete footings under deck
5) 2x8 pressure treated lumber floor joists 16" o.c.
6) 4x4 pressure treated lumber posts at footing locations indicated below Three in each direction at corners and at center line
7) Deck components secured to house with screws and lag bolts Deck surface is free-standing on footings
8) Lateral bracing (horizontal member below joists) visible on photos below 9) Decking is pressure treated 2x6 lumber
10) Rise & run of stairs approx 6 3/4" rise with 11 1/2" run PHOTO 4 - FRONT OF HOUSE FACING EAST (JUNE 2024) PHOTO 5 - BACK OF HOUSE FACING NORTH (JUNE 2024) PHOTO 1 - FRONT DECK STAIRS (JUNE 2023)
PHOTO 2 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FRONT DECK
(JUNE 2023)
PHOTO 3 - RAMP TO FRONT DECK
(JUNE 2023)
Appendix C - Single-Family Residence Floor Plan and House Photos Bedrooms: 3 Building Height: 13.18'

7.d
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

7.d
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment D - Project Plans (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 




 
 




 
  





 

 
! "#$%&%
'()*+,)-+.)//-0(-&--*122+0-+)"#3$%&%

 4 5+--1# '2&&**21-+6-+&)17-+218209*1:-0;*-/0    <)=*)10'()*+,)-+ >-1#'2&&**21-+<-=*1- 

4 ?-0>@'2&&**21-+<)=*% 



4 '<<-$%<*+-.2+,)+A2() B+%5/)11-+?*1 2.%5/)11-+B120+) '21+).5/)11*1B-+=*.-8)+.*) %'*@2+1-@6)CC)12 '()*+,)-+)A-0*;)1@21-()0)[email protected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





!
'2&&**21-+7-+21&2=-0)$$+2=)/2;(-K+0-+

! 2;-10)L'2&&**21-+<)=*-.210-0(-&2*21%
MNO
POQRSTUPVNUW XTTOQYZS[T\U]^O_TU`a[bTScUdefdWfghUUijdkjU\UXll^mnOoUm_U]^O_TU`a[bTScUfUepWpgdghU`SSTa[Vq

7.e
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
 


    
!  


" #

$%&
 ' ' ' ()
*

 +
! + 
*

,,
-
 
 


)-






 ,
-
 
./

0  

 


. 
 

()


,%,0
,1  

2
 %






)
 
,
-  

()
./
 

,,0
,3% %




 

()
()
./




,%

-,,
-

 . 
*


0
%


0
 0

 



4


 


 




5
 
. 
 

()

0
 
 )
,,)

 




5
 
. *


, 
)
. (,

(
*0







 


 
6, 
 

%,



 



,



-


 

 


 

 







,,)


5
 

 
. 
*


0

7  ,





)
 





 

 

 

 










 
. 


.


 "66






,

-


 

,,)
 


 





,

0

 
,,
 



 ,

 
. 
 

()

0
 %

 
 0 
. 

.


 "66


 

 



.  

()




 


%


)) 




 
. 
899:;<8=';>    

()
 ),,)

 


 ?@ABCDEF    G

1


- 

%




 HB=I'
JK'L
LM   

,

0,

   


,,



 
  


N
-  

 #

. 
 


    
!  


" #

$%&

OPQ
RQSTUVWRXPWY ZVVQS[\U]V^W_`QaVWbc]dVUeWfghfihjYWWklfmlW^WZnn`opQqWoaW_`QaVWbc]dVUeWhWgrirjfjYWbUUVc]Xs

7.e
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
   






 
  
!"#$%&'($)&)*+$'$#)&(),$(-,).&,$+/""($&%)*'.%.#(00123245  





6

7






7
8







 

9: 
;

7
8



6








6






7<
8;

8


 ;


6




7



=
=

>






?? 
: 
@8

A













 









7<
 

>



7







7







 
: B







>

;;7


: 






;;
8

=


6




: )C'+,)//.&$,'($)&#5 D

E88






>

7





>



  

=
8
8>8



6 



78;
;
>
888









;
>
8 






;

: 
,)&#"&($("/#5 0F232GH3I3 J;

K 



;;

 


 ,!LHGMNH2G 



; 


OPQRPS
8

8 =?P
T



8
88


7=





=

 U



P 
7

8OV
:PS: J8 WX8
 Y: 
2F2324H30M J;

K 



Z






 
7 8
[

;7V


Y




\8B;8
 ;
;

7

P?O
>

 
8
S]PKS


 K >S9

8
OV
:P?QS: J8 WX8
 Y: 











;







 



8 




7



 
: 
 


V






 


8

8



: 










7
;;


8



:
^_`
a`bcdefag_fh iee`bjkdlemfno`pefqrlsedtfuvwuxwyzff{hu|hfmfi}}o~`€f~pfno`pefqrlsedtfwfvxyuyzfqdderlg‚

7.e
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
 



 












 

  





!











 
"


#

$

#

$!



%








 


$

$ &&
 

$
 

  


 


#
'
(









)*



 !





$






#








 





+









)*










 
 


 






$








%


!


 







 
 



)




,
 



$%



, 
,

 

 


  






%




 
)
 
"


 




-
%








 

  





-


#
%




 

 
"






%


,


 





,


 

 +

# 




%




%





#%



 

 
 







%




%









.
"





 

 
/
 

0123   $
4  


  

'%5
6 6 6 )

"

 7
4 7 
89:
;:<=>?@;A9@B C??:<DE>F?G@HI:J?@KLFM?>N@OPQORQST@@UVOWV@G@CXXIYZ:[@YJ@HI:J?@KLFM?>N@Q@P\R\SOST@K>>?LFA]

7.e
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  


!"#$% &'

()(*+)(,

$-.-/
!01-/
2 13456
!578-+09+:.;
<0=-
>54/
$>
!
*('??@%

A+*,B+(*

0.=-.4
A/C/40DE/F-
/GE5-

A+*,B+(*




HI


 J
K

L

 MNOPQ J


R



I
K

I
 SK
TUVJIK
WIX
 


J 

K
J YIW 

SK
TU
YI


I
PZV [IK\YI

PL


] YIW 
I^K
_M`
a_U bQ_
ZK JJcdK
e
JI
f


Z

V[IK \YI

PL


] YIW 
I^K
M




P
UVU b_g
h_Q]

P

JLH
fa
WOK
I
M
LV Pia_TQMj]PkaOlQYIYIJXL
I OYI 
[I
YI

O

IK
HfKfH
YIW

L JY
JXL
f
Lm

 

PY
 XIJ
fackcdZUn
J
`I I
fP

Z

V[IK \YI


L


] YIW 
I^K
MI
fIW
J
K

fnIX



PL_


IK

PIWK
oIKYI

J
f

IYI
_ p XI
LNf


I
YY
K



J
fK

I
_ qKfILoIJ

I
cWI 


L




Jf
H
I
fIYI^K
 I_
JrPKf
JII^K

I


J
fLfW
 _ PWI

   XI

IJ
KJ
f

W
_
JrPKf
JI


J
f

I_oIKJJJ^XYI


fYI^K
J
fLI IJL

HI
fIs



_ 
fIi

II JJ
f 
f

fLKfWYYI


L

Yt
IK 
_Pf
f


J
fH

JY
YY
X
KK 
J
fLH

J

HXL 

s



 JJ
XI

_PfYJ
f
X
KiI_PffJKIJ
J
tJfH LI
J fJ

fLfWq _ 


K_
IPJI




J
fLfJ
HI
JfJX


f
f
f
H
YI

f YY
K

 _Pf
IJ
KJ
fK

U
YtI_ 
P
W`It
KK
tJHfL
fLI WJH
J
KI


I HfIH
J
J
 KI

JY
K

 HfI

_ 
fIi

IRY
J
f 
f



s


J
HIJfK

J


fI

f
 g 


ff
JJ

K 
J


J
f

f 

 LIU
tf
s


 
IY
X
KK 

WI_ 

I_`It
IJ



f IU
tf
s


_
uvw
xwyz{|}x~v} €||wy‚{ƒ|„}
†w‡|}ˆ‰ƒŠ|{‹}ŒŒŽ}}‘’Œ“’}„}€””†•–w—}•‡}
†w‡|}ˆ‰ƒŠ|{‹}}˜Ž˜Œ}ˆ{{|‰ƒ~™

7.e
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  





















 





  
!












 



 
"


  













#
"
$


 





 





  
!








!






"
 



"%



 &




 
 






%


 









#
"


'
(





 
)

'*







'






"(
%



 





'
  &













'












+

 

!



"






"
 



'

'%







 


  
 

,









%



!
"


'


'

- &
 




. 





'

 
 






 

%
 






 



&
,




 



























'
&'

#




'









(
"




'
& 
 

,











 


 



'






( %
"   .


'

&/0 


 &

 





!




"















'
'

 

 

& 

&

/0 

 .
&'
 





'





"





& 



 






&


%
"  
&'
&




1
# 
1
!

(












 .






'









'
 

'

 

!













(













'










%


 


1



(
"







%





'




 



2



&





'








  

'

 







  

3"

4






*5
2
".





6






'





 





 




'




&

















"
 
 














'





'







'


#


'
 







6

 


'

!



 '





  


'
 




&





'6
2





&'

 





&





'






'


'








789
:9;<=>?:@8?A B>>9;CD=E>F?GH9I>?JKEL>=M?NOPNQPRS??TUNVU?F?BWWHXY9Z?XI?GH9I>?JKEL>=M?P?O[Q[RNRS?J==>KE@\

7.e
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  




 











 





 


!"#
$
%
 








 

! 
 


&


'

$









  





 


 
 


!(#







 ! 

)"






#


 
$










 



















 



!*

 






+



  
!"



















#

 




 
$








$






!"





 









 
















 




 



!,




























 






 





 





 




-
"#


 








  











 ! 
 


&



















#



$


!+
#




$








 


$


#


 

 

$




!.


#
 


$







#






$

/ /

 

 


! 

)"



















/



$


!"





%





 





!" 








$







 




$ 








 




$
$
 



#



$ 




!"
$
%

! 

%













 







!+





#






 




#



 





!+







 




&"



 








 

$

 


&"!+





$








  










 









 

$
#


&"! +









 








/


 










#







 









 



 

! 

+











!"



#

0





 





1











$






!"





 $


 


$
! 
-

2











 

 




 
3










!"$




















  

  

 












$






 





 



4








 
! 
567
879:;<=8>6=5? @<<79AB;C<D=EF7G<=HICJ<;K=?LM?NMOP==QR?SR=D=@TTFUV7W=UG=EF7G<=HICJ<;K=M=LXNXO?OP=H;;<IC>Y

7.e
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  











 





 








!









"


#

$

!

 


 #

$






  














% 
&
'






 













 (


 
!















% !





 
)







*
 +



 

!





)












 
 

 














 









 
% 
")%"


*
!







 ,
!











  
!


% 
&
'

!
-!







!






#!
  '% 

-



,
!


 












 
!% 






















 



 )


 




!


 
-% 

-




)





!







&


 










% 











!










)




 )

)












 %




  







)

 

)












.
% 
&
'

 

 


"


/















)






*
 + 









%






,








 





)



 


 

%





 






*
 +



 


 








!


01








&




*
 +
 








 





%





 
 )

 






 










*
 + 
)










  










 
,
!







% 
 


2










3







,

) 








 
 % 
 


#

!
 


)







4)

 )




!

 
4





 



 




))% 
567
879:;<=8>6=55 ?<<79@A;B<C=DE7F<=GHBI<;J=KLMKNMOP==QRKSR=C=?TTEUV7W=UF=DE7F<=GHBI<;J=M=LXNXOKOP=G;;<HB>Y

7.e
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  























 
 



!









"






#
$




 %%







"





% 
 
 &
$'#


#


 (





(





#








 



  


!



#
$
 






(











#)
!




(!

 #


 

#
(
(



(

 &
)

%




#


*



 !

 





 !

+
 
"$'
#




 

%






#)
!

 



 
#


$

%,

#-

#


$ 
 


.






!


$/






%

0


























1





1













1







 1



$/













2


 








 
 





*


























*


#

 (

(
 
$ 




 
(








(
























 














(
 



% 3 

#4







% 




$ 
3 

#4






)

#


#




 








5
 














 










1(










#



 







 





%




(




  











 





#$















 



















%




 




 









$

)
06 













 







$ 


/



%2

7
 


8


 




 
 
%

#





(



#


#






 $ 
 


8










 






 % 
$ 2

7

%





 


 






















 

)


(

*






$ 


/










()
 



9:
;9$ 




(
-








 


 
1




 %






1

#








#
%






#



 



$<






#


5






0

# #
 #
 










(

 







5



 #(









$ 
2

7






















#
*







#














 







#
(

$<



%



%

#




(
  %##

 


(  
 





5



 %
%






%


#



#
=>?
@?ABCDE@F>E=G HDD?AIJCKDLEMN?ODEPQKRDCSETUVTWVGXEEYZT[ZELEH\\N]^?_E]OEMN?ODEPQKRDCSEVEU`W`GTGXEPCCDQKFa

7.e
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
 








 !!



 
 !



"#



$





%


&
#

" #




'
" 
 

('






 !
'










'
 



 



!







!



 


!









")










*


" 

!

#'!
+!







*





!

  



!


!

" 

,#!








$
-

!
!



.


 

" 

-



!




 




!

!

'
'

!

 
 $


$




"/

!

&
#




 


.





!#









$0

#$


!

0

'

0

1




'!
 

 !

0

1"















'
'

!

 
 $




'


!





'
" 
 

('

$ 


!



 $






 
%
  
!
"
%
*












!


!
 !


 
 !




!

0








"#





' !




!


2

.!
"/

 




! 




 !
!

$
!





" 

,#!







 

'





$ 




$

!!




$

$
"3.!



 
!




'





!
'


 
-#

 " 3


! 



$
!!



$





 

#

"3 
'
 





 !

"

!

$




.!


! 



.










 " 




 

0
!
$
*









   


+
('

! 



!





'

 
 " 
 

0

$




.!








 
'






 


!

!



 

!
"





', !'!





 





"











''
!



 






 


',

!

 !!" 

,#!

$



 
!





 
 

'

!


!


!

"3


456
7689:;<7=5<4> ?;;68@A:B;C<DE6F;<GHBI;:J<KLMKNMOP<<QRK>R<C<?SSETU6V<TF<DE6F;<GHBI;:J<M<LWNWOKOP<G::;HB=X

7.e
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  

 

 









 





 
 



!"







 



 


 








  

















 #

$




 










! 

 %

 





 


 
 

 

 &
'
 








 



 $ 







! 
(!( 

 % 

 
 


!
)"

 



$





 




$

 




 ! 
 %

 


  


!"






















  


 


!"




  



 
 


 $



 

 









!"





 






  
 

 



$




 !"
$





 
  

 * 





$
 
! 
 

 * 

 





 




"

&

+ 
 , 

"


-   
 #

.




"
//0!1
2!3-

"


 $

4
(

 
.

"%4!53  

 (

 + 


(



6

 



 

$




  7  

8





9 



(
 
 
(/0/



 
















 






 
 7:




 



  



 



 



 
 
  
9  

 &




 
! 
+
 

 ;<=>   

?  


@ * 

&
(
A A A 
 %

  4
?  

 B$ 
CDE
FEGHIJKFLDKCM NJJEGOPIQJRKSTEUJKVWQXJIYKZ[\ZM\]^KK_`Za`KRKNbbTcdEeKcUKSTEUJKVWQXJIYK\K[fMf]Z]^KVIIJWQLg

7.e
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  


  !"#

$%&!'

(")*
+,-./01!2&3(4-! *10
567

5 0
18/01,"93:),";(<<&!2(3!%(123!<'"-03("#10
7=

$ (")><9,%,903("#>0

7?

$


@A

 
BA
C



CAD


D

EFGHA
B
IA 

C C

AJDD



@
E
KD
LMNOPQ
RNM STUN VD CCWXD YWXZ
C

KD
SPU P


W[

QD


USPUP



A

A

 \CUC
E K
W[ I
N 
KAN
A\IA

C
E

AIA
N EAF

A


CJA
EI

I
II
D

E@

CIA 



] ^



J




C
E@
C
J

A
E
CA

C
 
EE
C@EDE@
@E
EA E@

B
C@

CJA
D
C
E
A
C
E
@
A
D
C



B@

CJ HCJD]N 
KAN
A\


CAD
AD
E



 
@

E

A
EAACD

@

DD
A CA
E
CC


E
@
A
D
C



B
A
EAD

IAI
CC
A
EA ACD
H

AIAI
CJ


EB@

J




E

A
D
A
 

A

IA
 
EII
D
N 


N
B

AB_``DA C
E

E

C
C
E
@
ACC@

A  I
DN 
 

AQA

CCCI
D@EA

@N 

N
B

AB_``A
ICCA 
H
BN EAF

A
]C
E
@
CD

IA 
AA
D
A
 

A



 D
C

J
^

A
N 


N
B

AB_``


C

@
EAC
E
ECDD
AAC
J

EA`C
EA
EACIA 
N 
EAF

A


C
EEC A^



J

@
C
I

EA


E 

N  

AZC@
]C
@

CJ


D
AHA

C AD




 C
E F


CA
AH
G

AD
IA

E
DI
DC


@
E
GAD
A


 ACIA 
[DI
AA
AD
HACIA 


C 

A
HIAD

A
EA
E A`
E

NF


C
E
@

C

[B
 
A

AIAJ

B
EAE


C IAD
NF
]C@EB
E
IIADE@


]N

GGINGAD
AFA]

E


C
E
@
a




CC@
a
IA

EIAI
C II
D
A
E

 NKE


C
E
`
[
 C 
@

CA^
ACC

 
B

E@
E
@

CJDECC@E
@

CDE
E`DCC
E
 @
a
H


C
IA

E
II
D
N 
bcd
edfghijekcjbl miidfnohpiqjrsdtijuvpwihxjyz{y|{}ljj~y€jqjms‚ƒd„j‚tjrsdtijuvpwihxj{jz |
}y}ljuhhivpk†

7.e
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
 








 


 





 !"#







 
# 
"

$

"#
"
 
"

%


 
!


"%
 

"#
& 
''"&'#
(








"


%



)
"
%


(


 
 
'

#





! 



#

 


!
#*

"







 
 
 


%






"
& 
 

+






")


&(







# %

 "#


!






 
!


",#


 
 #
!

 # 
%
 
 

&(







%



 

 
-#
%#!

 
%




!

"

#


#
 
 


&(





 
"##






#
",#
 .
/
#

#  






 

 







!


 
! &(





%""
!


  
! &(


!
 !
#


#
!
#('""
! !

!



  
  


&(







%
  





('


*
)
$& 
0&
1





"

(' 
!

#





 # #

&



""
 
" 

#




#

 #
 


 












%

# 




!



%)

%


"& 


&
!

!.$$


 

+





)



"##

! %

" 
)
 


#




& 
 

+







!

 
! 

"
 ##%

#
#
#
 






# 


 



#
 
!
#

# "
#"



 


%
 
 !

 




!


"##

! )


 

$


 



 
 




 ##
& 


&
!

!.$$





#


""
!%
('&0




" 
 







#
!%


$





 "
#

" 
& 
 

+








 #
#"& 

&
!

!.$$%#




('& (







 

%


%





#




 
%

#
%#!

#


$# %

#
& 
''"&'#
(







!


%#


%#
 
" 
 
"

(



 
'

#
! 
" 
""





(


 
 
'

#
)

"



"#


"
 
" 


#
 
"
 
" 
!
)



% 

"##"
 
" 
"
&
234
546789:5;3:2< =9946>?8@9A:BC4D9:EF@G98H:IJKILKMN::O<IP<:A:=QQCRS4T:RD:BC4D9:EF@G98H:K:JULUMIMN:E889F@;V

7.e
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
 



















 ! "!

#$


" 
%

!
#








%&


 "







"




 
'


 %

$




$
"




&


 %


&













"



&


! 


!




( 
$



 


%




""



&
  &





 
%

&


$

%








"








 
"


 




 "

%


 "





""



 
"



%"

 

"
&









"! 
#


$



 



"

""

! 

!




( 





)
%

 
! "!

#$








)
%

 
!  

*





+

$


"
$
",-./&
(

,








& 







 


+
" 


 &

"







$
0
(

%

%
!#











%



"





!#
$



"



! 
"!

#$

&
%










&"(












 
! 
#


$ 

%

+



!  

%







%"
&


 
! #




"
&


 


""




&
 


 

+






! 
 

%








+







"
&


 
! 

!




( 
$


%
""


"


/
! #

/"



""





%
"

 



"


 %"
&


 



""


%
"

 


&


! 
12



.
"


""


!#




. 


 






.










"


""

 

!#





 



"

""




""

 
%
" 
 


/










)
% "


%
" 



%
" 
&""
!2


345
65789:;6<4;3= >::57?@9A:B;CD5E:;FGAH:9I;JKLJMLNO;;PQJRQ;B;>SSDTU5V;TE;CD5E:;FGAH:9I;L;KWMWNJNO;F99:GA<X

7.e
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  















 







! 



 




 "
"


 


"




#$




 









 



 
 



!















! 
#$










# %
 





 

!






 




 








 



 







#& 



!







 




 

# 

&


!









"


 




 
#'
 
"

#




())





 



 




 *
# 


#




())









#'


"







 


 




+
" 




 


 
# 

&










 

"



 


#

 


!



 



 








 #'







&# 

, 




"

 



 "





#&




+
















#&





-
 







 






#&











 






 +


# 

"&








"




+











 


 



)







 
' "









 







# 
.















 







 










  
















#'









 
%

/
















 
















# 
,
0
"










!
*























 




 














 
)



# 
$
1"








"






!



"


%

/





+











*








 




!






# 
,2









!














"

  


! 









   
3

 


 
 



# 
'
3












 

!




!



 



+


!
!






*








 
 


!


# 
4 &









!



 






 

 
"

















#
567
879:;<=8>6=5? @<<79AB;C<D=EF7G<=HICJ<;K=L?MLNMOP==QRLSR=D=@TTFUV7W=UG=EF7G<=HICJ<;K=M=?XNXOLOP=H;;<IC>Y

7.e
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20250804 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)
 





 


  
















!
 


"

"#$$





"
%


!







!


&


!



!





 

'










"&

 






&(



&







!

 


!& 
)(





&
 





(


*




&



&


(



&






 
 

'



&
(!



!
 +









(