Agenda — Pacifica City Council, February 23, 2026 (part 3 of 4)

Sincerely,
Lynn Carrozzi
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Michael Casey
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Devine, Daniella; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; City Council
Subject: Public Hearing - 650 Cape Breton Drive
Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 2:01:11 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners, et al,
I am writing to express my complete objection to the option of rezoning of this INC church property at 650 Cape Breton Drive to something more liberal and expansive.

I am on written record with the City as being against the presence and activities of the INC organization on the unique and tranquil Park Pacifica site at 650 Cape Breton Drive. They already have a few other such owned properties/activities on the northern Peninsula, not very far from here. How much is enough?
I have lived on Cape Breton Drive for 52 years. Already, there are now multiple sources of new pressure on the fabric of this quiet, traditional neighborhood. These include: the trend of

7.h
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape corporate ownership of multiple (many) houses (See CBS "60 Minutes" segment on this topic) - owning, in some cases, even whole neighborhoods; "Work from home" activities that add to an ambient "headcount" increase all around, and thus, more cars parked on the streets (and more speeding as well as other constant traffic scofflaw violations of traffic laws; AirBnB rental activities; grown children returning home to live with parents again because of increasing TECH work layoffs locally & regionally; general housing shortages everywhere along with high cost of rents that impede the ability of young people to afford their own first apartments and going back home to mom & dad.

To the aforementioned dynamic mix, now add somewhat "mysterious", generally unknown activities and future plans of the local INC church. The place seems like a guarded fortress. Large trucks are seen going to and from the site at all hours. The church management does not appear to have any (meaningful) liaison with the immediate neighbors, and unknown levels of contact with the City. I NEVER hear a thing from them. What have they been doing since they purchased this property? What is going on up there now?? What are the future intentions of the church ownership for this site?
Please be responsive to those Pacificans in the far "BOV" area (Cape Breton Dr./Oddstad Blvd. etc. continuum) of Park Pacifica who are the most affected by the presence of this organization in our beautiful neighborhood, and the stress & uncertainty it causes.

Thank you!
F. Michael Casey
Cape Breton Drive
Park Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Orion Smith
To: Public Comment; Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Devine, Daniella; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; City Council
Subject: Public Hearing - 650 Cape Breton
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 9:13:45 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners,
Please reject the rezoning of this property. The long history of issues, violations, and complaints is deeply concerning. It remains unclear what the intended uses for this site are and how your vote may affect its future. I hope you will stand with the many Pacifica residents who have voiced their concerns about both the current conditions and the potential future activities on this site.

Sincerely,
Orion Smith
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Dave and Nuala ODonnell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public hearing 650 cape Breton dr
Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 2:06:02 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacfica Planning Commissioners
Reject rezoning of this property. The history of problems, violations and complaints are alarming. It is difficult to discern the uses intended for this site and how your vote could influence the future use of the property. I hope you will represent the many Pacifica residents who have expressing their concerns for sometime regarding the current and future use on this site.

Sincerely
David and Nuala O’Donnell
Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape

7.h
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape

7.h
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Fuat Aygun
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Devine, Daniella; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; City Council
Subject: Public Hearing- 650 Cape Breton Drive
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 9:51:49 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners:

Reject Rezoning of this property! Ohhow I miss the old corral and those beautiful horses. There were no
conflicts,no traffic, no doubt of all residents regarding outrageous proposals and complete disregard to
citations, fines, illegal grading! And now this new "Trojan Horse" being shoved down our throats and our
street.

Due diligence is absolutely paramount from our Planning Department to avoid unforeseen and deviously
concealed plans from the applicant for Rezoning Development Plan.

Just say NO !
Sincerely,
Fuat Aygun
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape

7.h
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Linda Peix
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: Public Hearing- 650 Cape Breton Drive
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 12:47:18 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please reject the re-zoning of the 650 Cape Breton Drive property.

We bought our home at 871 Cape Breton Drive in 1983. Not many cars parked on the street then. As the years went by, the kids in the neighborhood grew up and so naturally an increase in cars. One year, I believe it was 1989, there was a fire on our street. It was actually a fire behind one house on the hill side of the street. Difficult to get to for the firefighters. Soon there were firefighters from far and wide all trying to contain it. All parked up at the end of Oddstad, some up Cape Breton Court and most on our street Cape Breton Drive. Exciting to see, but also scary.

There was no was to get out quickly if things went wrong…(Sidebar- We had a CPR class taught by a Pacifica firefighter, who told me he was there and that Cape Breton was the furthest away from the highway and egress was not good…) This always stayed in the back of my mind. No quick way out. When the church purchased the land and had services there, it was a mass exit when the service was over. I don’t want to think about what could happen if there are multiple houses/families trying to get out of the back of the valley at once. My main concern is too much traffic for the 3 dead ends. Too much traffic for quick egress. The more housing, the worse it will be.

I know I’m not the only one concerned as there have been multiple complaints and concerns. PLEASE take a DETAILED LOOK at the future plans for this property. Take into consideration the potential impact it could bring.

Linda Peix
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Sue Digre
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing. 650Cape Breton Drive
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 6:51:45 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
The City of Pacifica's behaviors concerning this property are puzzling and concerning. A government of, by, for The People means the Public at large is able to be actively engaged and honored. Their engagement in crafting their local Communities should be protected by Electeds, Appointeds and Staff.
650 Cape Breton has always been a special interest area in our Community. It is very troubling when any re-zoning or major developments are not made well known to the Community at large and in a timely manner.

It gives a message that our local citizens have no rights at all to craft our own Community.

City Council also has discretionary powers for a reason, to protect the LOCAL Public welbeing and Public engagement.

Please step up.

Thank you.

Sue Digre
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Jennifer XOXO
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing: Monday, Nov. 17 at 7:00 PM
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 2:59:06 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Why are we allowing INC to move into Pacifica? We already don’t have the infrastructure to deal with our current situation.
• Why won’t the church say what their plans are for the property? • Why should they get more allowances after doing grading work without approval? • What are the repercussions of the massive events they've held in Pacifica? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Douglas
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing-650 Cape Breton Drive
Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 1:42:17 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Reject Rezoning of this property. It is difficult to discern the uses intended for this site and how your vote could influence the future use of the property.I hope you will represent the many Pacifica residents who have been expressing their concerns for sometime regarding the current and future use on this site.

Sincerely Doug Young resident of
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.h
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Sue Digre
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re City Manager
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:50:01 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Agenda item tonightb5:30.Regarding a search for a City Manager The person should be aware of Coastal issues, erosion, transportation, economic & small business issues, local culture ,history.

The person should hsve a special appreciation of respect for the views of the Public at Large and a committment to adequate outreach.

The person should respect the Public Vote especially the Coastal Act (and Coastal Commission), EPA etc., local public votes.

A respect for Local Control should be honored.

Thank you.

7.h
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment H - Public Comments Received Item 1 - 11-17-2025 City of Pacifica Planning Commission Hearing (6155 : 650 Cape From: Sebastien Pfeiffer
To: Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; Devine, Daniella; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of Cape Breton Church Property Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:36:02 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to reject the proposed rezoning of the Cape Breton Church property in Pacifica. The site’s troubling history of violations, complaints, and unclear operational intentions raises serious concerns about its future use and impact on the surrounding community.

It remains difficult to determine the intended purpose for this property, and any zoning changes could inadvertently enable uses that are incompatible with the character and wellbeing of our neighborhoods. I ask that you consider the voices of numerous Pacifica residents who have consistently expressed apprehension about both current activities and potential developments at this location.

Please uphold the interests of our community by voting against this rezoning proposal.

Sincerely,
Sebastien Pfeiffer
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: KENNETH S KOENIGSBERG
To: Public Comment
Subject: 650 Cape Breton property
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 3:49:13 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please reject rezoning of this property.

That would create a never ending nightmare for our neighborhood and community Thank you
Ken
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: Summer Santarosa
To: Public Comment
Subject: INC Church
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 2:26:59 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Good afternoon,
I'd like to submit a public comment for the meeting tonight. There seem to be unanswered questions about the INC church.

Are there traffic plans to mitigate an already very busy area on a weekend? Why won’t the church say what their plans are for the property? Why Pacifica? Is there a large population of people attending this church that live in Pacifica?
The town needs good restaurants, family recreation, and local businesses--not mega churches.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: Madeline Hart
To: Public Comment
Subject: Property on Cape Breton Drive
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:48:30 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Unfortunately I am unavailable to attend the meeting tonight 11/17/25 regarding the old stabes property on Cape Breton Drive. From what I have read the owners of this property have not followed the laws regarding permits and have made some changes on the land and are trying to aquire permit to rezone the property to be able to have large gatherings.

As a property owner in the back of the valley I feel this is not the location for such gatherings. The location tucked away in the back where there is limited access for emergency vehicles and the increase in traffic to a residential area are reasons of concern.

I hope the Planning Commission stays true to the existing home owners and residents of this area and declines any rezoning or inquires that will forever change the neighborhood in a very detrimental way.

Thank you
M. Hart
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: RAMON LOPEZ
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public hearing - 650 Cape Breton Drive, Pacifica Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 2:33:29 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners:

Reject Rezoning of this property. The history of problems, violations and complaints are alarming. It is difficult to discern the uses intended for this site and how your vote could influence the future use of the property. I hope you will represent the many Pacifica residents who have been expressing their concerns for sometime regarding the current and future use on this site.

Sincerely,
Ramon Lopez
Pacifica, Ca 94044
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: RAMON LOPEZ
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public hearing - 650 Cape Breton Drive, Pacifica Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 3:20:04 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners:

7.i
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: Arnel Magat
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing - 650 Cape Breton Drive
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:52:49 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners:

I am concerned about the potential excess noise, traffic and parking difficulties rezoning this site would bring to the neighborhood.

I hope you will consider the concerns of the Pacifica residents and reject the rezoning of this property.

Regards,
Arnel & Maria Magat
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: Michele Feher
To: [email protected]; Berman, Lauren; Davis, Marjory; [email protected]; Ferguson, Alex; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: Public Hearing - 650 Cape Breton
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 12:48:56 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica Planning Commissioners,
Since you are meeting again on the issue of the 650 Cape Brenton property I want to reiterate my concerns about it.

I am concerned that the property that is very close to my home on where I have lived for 25 years. A few years ago I first wrote to voice my objections to having a MegaChurch tucked back in valley. I also wrote in August. I have never been officially notified of these hearings despite living only blocks away from the property and will be directly affected by your decision on this issue.

Oddstad is the street that all cars going to or from that location will have to travel. Hundreds of cars must traverse Oddstad to access the MegaChurch at that location. This factor alone should be disqualifying. That property abuts Sweeney Ridge which you must know is part of the Federal Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Please publish the traffic study and environmental impact statement that surely was previously performed.

Personally, as a senior, I am most concerned about air quality and emergency access. When the occasional Bay Area wildfires happen the air in the back of the valley has demonstrably higher air pollution. I had to stay inside and buy 2 air filters the last time.

Sincerely,
Michele Feher
25 years Pacifica resident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) From: Chris Isaac
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing ~~ 650 Cape Breton Drive
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 2:23:43 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commission,
As concerned local citizen, taxpayer and voter - I believe that you should reject any rezoning of that property. It is clear from a public examination of the property violations and complaints, added to the significantly controversial actions of the principals involved in that organization - that you would be opening Pandora's box by allowing any variance to the current use.

It is highly likely that group has a long term plan to alter the historical, allowed, and currently appropriate use of that land. Which would be to the detriment of all the citizens now living nearby, who are simply living with their "implied covenant of quiet enjoyment" - Free from unreasonable disturbances, nuisances, and interference from neighbors or other tenants.

Sincerely,
Chris Isaac
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.i
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments Received Up Until 2-11-26 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!

"
#$%

&'()*+,--.-/&01*2344546789:;5<=4<6=467434=:67><;>?@ABCADEAFGHIJII 01-??4K7:L4MNOP89QR<6=Q47S446(2T4;:</:U3:;7>0UVW3KV>?UV3:;7901XYZ89<6=7V4U:7R>? [<K:?:K<H<5W6:K:\<TK>3\>3<7:>601U:7R89]&V4[3>\437R^S643;<6=U:7R5<RQ434?4334=7>H :6=:L:=W<TTR>3K>TT4K7:L4TRH<;1_N`Oa8>31_N`ObPcd8
e"
*] (/U:;7V4>S643>?34<T\3>\437RT>K<74=<7fgJU<\4h347>6i3:L40*[/Jjkl jmJlJfJ<6=*[/JIIlnIJlIJJ9<;5>34;\4K:?:K<TTR=4;K3:Q4=:6-oV:Q:7*pq_`rsP`Oa8tu<6= h] &V4[3>\437RK>67<:6;<T<324nJHJJJ;vW<34?>>7<346<SV:KVS<;\34L:>W;TR W7:T:w4=?>34vW4;73:<6\W3\>;4;pqZrxP`Pyz`P{N8td(6<64??>377>KT4<67V4[3>\437RH(/U7>>| <K7:>6;7>345>L4;<6=};>:T?3>57V4U>L434=*346<7><34<;>W7;:=4>?7V4U>L434=*346<>67V4 [3>\437R~<6=
U] &V4U:7R:;;W4=<i4KT<3<7:>6>?[WQT:K/W:;<6K4<6=(674677>*Q<74pqY8t =<74=.<RIJHIJIj34T<7:627>:TT42<T23<=:627V<7V<=>KKW334=>67V4[3>\437R7V3>W2V7V4 345>L<T>?;<6=};>:TS:7V>W7<64K4;;<3R23<=:62\435:7H<K>\R>?SV:KV:;<77<KV4=V4347><6= V434:6<?743:6K>3\>3<74=QR34?4346K4<;-oV:Q:7*~<6= i] (/U?:T4=<7:54TR<\\4<T<6=<6<=5:6:;73<7:L4V4<3:62S<;V4T=>6*W2W;7jJH IJIjHS:7V.;]<T43:4*35467>H-;v]<K7:62<;7V4=4;:26<74=*=5:6:;73<7:L4'4<3:62^??:K43 pqPN`b{b
P`8tSV>:;;W4=<i4K:;:>6<6=^3=43>?[WQT:K/W:;<6K4'4<3:62^??:K43<6= />7:K4>?(674677>*Q<74pq`yP`8t>6*W2W;7jkHIJIjH<K>\R>?SV:KV:;<77<KV4=V4347><6= V434:6<?743:6K>3\>3<74=QR34?4346K4<;-oV:Q:7hHSV:KVW\V4T=7V4/^~<6= -] &V4^3=43W\V>T=;7V4/^<6=7V4'4<3:62^??:K43K>6KTW=4=7V<723<=:62H<; =4?:64=QR7V4U:7R;5W6:K:\<TK>=4H=:=>KKW3>67V4[3>\437RS:7V>W77V434vW:34=23<=:62 \435:7]&V4'4<3:62^??:K43H7V3>W2V7V4^3=43H=:34K7;H<5>62>7V437V:62;H7V<7(/U=>7V4 ?>TT>S:62j9:6;7<TT43>;:>6K>673>T54<;W34;;WKV<;QW76>7T:5:74=7>;:T7?46K4;H23<L4TQ<2;H >3;73<SS<77T4;7>K>67<:6;>:T\:T4;:67V4:3KW33467T>K<7:>6;7>7V4;<7:;?<K7:>6>?7V4hW:T=:62 ^??:K:<T~I9T:5:7W;4>?7V4U>L434=*346<7>:7;>KKW\<6KRKT<;;:?:K<7:>6<6=;WQ4K77><\\3>L<T QR7V4hW:T=:62^??:K:<T~<6=n934?3<:6?3>5<6R<==:7:>6<T23<=:62>3345>L<T>?;<6=};>:T?3>5 7V4[3>\437R<6=7>>Q7<:6<23<=:62\435:7?>37V4:TT42<T23<=:62};<6=34T>K<7:>67V<7>KKW334= >67V4[3>\437R<;;47?>37V:67V4/^6>T<7437V<6.<RnJHIJII~<6= ] ):6K4:;;W<6K4>?7V4^3=43H7V4U:7RK>6746=;7V<77V434V<L4Q446L<3:>W; :6;7<6K4;:6SV:KV7V4^3=43V<;Q446L:>T<74=:6KTW=:62HQW76>7T:5:74=7>H<T<324?<5:TR;\>37; 4L4677V<77>>|\T<K4>64Q3W<3RjnHIJII:67V4U>L434=*346<]^64Q3W<3RIgHIJIIH7V4 U:7R6>7:?:4=7V4(/U7V<7;WKV<64L467L:>T<74=7V4^3=43Q4K<W;4:7S<;6>7K>6;:;7467S:7V7V4 >KKW\<6KRKT<;;:?:K<7:>6>?7V4U>L434=*346<SV:KV>6TR<TT>S;W;4;34T<74=7><23:KWT7W3<TW;4 <6=7V44L467S<;6>7<\\3>L4=QR7V4ZbOachW:T=:62^??:K:<T]*K>\R>?7V<76>7:K4:;<77<KV4= V4347><6=:6K>3\>3<74=QR34?4346K4<;-oV:Q:7U]*==:7:>6<TTRH\V>7>23<\V;7<|46>6>3<Q>W7

7.j
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!
"# $%&

(

#$%&
(

(

)

' !
*# +

$%&

-

.'

#
/01223245
467859212:6128

)

;
<= 12>?5/@A=
+

#
B= 01/C?40D213?5=
+

$%&

;
,# E

' $%&

FGHIJK

L

M

&

NOPQFRS

TLU# VMWW
X

M&
#TLU# YW

OZ[[\G]^HG_`KRS

% b#
E# +
L

;
M.W+

!
MW,)

7.j
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!

"
#$%&&'(

'

)*+
,

)
-

!

)

(

)

2
3

451

446

%

)%"1

7.j
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

"#
! $

"
&

! $

(
#

&

)

&

&

#

0

1

0

2&

5!#

"
4" 89!

7.j
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

"

$

%

'())*++*(,-+

'(.,/*0-+

12 3456789:3;<8=>4?@;?2
A

"B

C

%

"

"

"A

"
F

"

!

G2 ;:H4?3;5;:=

C
"

'*IJ-+K

L

M
% "

N

OMPP
OLPPOPP

'*IJ-+

"

L

M

7.j
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!
"
#$%&'(''&)*+
,
-!"
,+#.$'&/01!#2
-!
$&
'(''
,,,

,
3-
,,
,
!
"
#
$%&'(''

,+#
4,
,
-

,
,&4"-

,56!+78,

#-,,""
,"#-+#-#,

#
+#-#
!
"
#$%&'(''7
9
:

=
:8,>
-,

-
!4?
,4
,
-
,,

&,"

,,

-

",
-,&4

4
&!4?
,4
,

-
,,

&
#,"

-
-46

,,#-
,

@"
,6",>
-7
A B;

;:C;=
:C=
:*!
#

,,>
-
-#!4",,4
7D
#!
#

,
,!
-!4
#
!
,-
#

,
78,
>
--#!-#!#4

-6"!#

,
,
--7
E FGGHIJKLMNO

)
?
#,,"#

,
?
#
,>
-&",",,"?
#,"

,
-!"
,

?
#
,,!"
,-,"

4
,
,!PQQRSTUVWX,&,,&6
,,7)

4
PQQRSTUVWX,&,,6
,,

?
#&,",,"
?
#,!,PQQRSTUVWX,&,,&6 ,,"

#
,YZ"-

,

Z"-7
[

;\]78#
"
!##

,,
>
-&,
-!#"
-
Z"
,&,4##

!##

,
7
^_ :
7>#*
@"
!#,>
-4!4
`abRQcdUef
-#!!##--
#
!-,&"

,
#&

"

&
,Y,,&

,

-&
,

&
-
4

,,g

7.j
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!" #
!""
$

%!&' ()*+"
,
+ ")!"*)-- +
%.

/.0

1

2
+&"34

!&"&&
,
'+")*-)*""
0%5/3

24
67
4%
5
1

5
3

5

3

$8
.

%*"5

!&
9& +:(! )&+(

5/

%
;

%

"3
4%

2

!&" "
'+")*-)-*"

%/

5

7
5

.%
%
4%

%

%
4%. 5
%55%%

5%
3

%
%
4%.
)

2%

%

3
2
33
%
%5<.%

4

2%425
4

==> ?@ABCDED?FGH>,52
5

.24%.
%
%

%

055

0
5

%45

.53

1
=I> JBDBKELGDMJNCMBD>,52
5

..%2
%5
.

5

5
%53
453
4

%
3
.

2

7.j
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!
"
#
$%
"%
!&'%(")

&'% "&
&'
"
#
$!*

!&&'
*'
"&"!
$!!+!
!
"
!&&'"
,*'
-')"$"
"
"$"

""!
#
$+
. /

0
12
#
$$'*3
'$*"!
"
%"!)
&&*$"

&%*&&"!)
%("
%&&
"
"$"$+#'

$'*!"$'
"
4"""
"$("!&&"$
&3

$+&"

"
#
$&&* &
*

"

"

!"&&

"+
5 /0

16

0

1+-

&"

"
"

#
$
$"!"
!"!%
"
)'!
%&
$
%3"
*"
"!
#
$"'
"

""!+2

#
$&&*$" *!*'&
&"&!"&&"!-
"

#
$+7"
"

""!
#
$
"*

!""

'-'*
-'"
&
&

!
"

"+
8+ 9
:

+2-
""!$%!

&' !&&'
#
$%(")
""
#
$ '-'"

#
$!&'%
"&
&'%)
"!"
!&)
"$
&!&&

"!

$+2-

" "

"
'"

&
&

)

"
*
&
'"!

"
#
$+
; 0<:
/
=

+2
#
$

*&
"
>&
!"
-*&
?"#@A" +>"BCDEFG+H2>
'

"

#
$"$$*"!
*&
+
I

+2
#
$3
*
#4J"

"!-

&&

"
$%

"%"

"%"&")
%)

"*K$"!+2
#
$

""!
"

"

"*'$"
-
%)
"

3
L"!>&
!"
+
ML

"N"&&")

-
O

7.j
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!!!"
!#

$

%
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
'(%)
*+,-./012+/3
"
)$%
)(!!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
'(%4
"
)(5

$

%
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
'(%)"

5%
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
)!!(
)()78

5%
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
57754
(

)(
(
9:;<:;; =>?@ABCBB

7.j
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!"#$%&%!"#$'
(#)(
)*+
+)

+,$,#"!"#$
-./012034564744
892:;29<
=.>?9?1?@A2B20@
CC7D90E@0?F<GHI
F10<9JK2;.6LDMN7O7

0.>?3<2B20@P32Q@@IR@;
=23;@JH-02JS
CC7D90E@0?F<GHI
F10<9JK2;.6LDMN7O7
TU57VWXCYXW7C
023;@JHPZ02JS20RQ9?.R?10.IR@;
=.[-2;9<3\E@0?>:G.J?2?U57L2E.F0.?@J]09G.
].20^.>>9.10>A2B20@2JH-02JS[
[email protected].>.J?>?Q.L9?3@Z`2R9Z9R2TaL9?3bV2>[email protected]?9JK?@3@1 9J3@10R2E2R9?32>0.E0.>.J?2?9G.>@[email protected][email protected]@ZU57L2E.F0.?@J]09G.

Ta`[email protected]?3bV6eK<.>92f9L09>?@TaefLbVIe?Q2>R@;.?@@102??.J?9@J?Q2?@J-./01203OW6 47446?Q.0.d2>2Z2;9<3>E@0?>.G.J?Ta:G.J?bV?Q2??@@SE<2R.1JH.0?Q.<[email protected]

[email protected]??Q.`[email protected]?3IgQ9>:G.J?d2>[email protected]?9G9?3?Q2? G9@<2?.H?Q.L2<9Z@0J92F19<[email protected];9J9>?02?9G.h.209JK_ZZ9R.0i>_0H.0 H2?.HD1K1>?OX6474OTa_0H.0bV2JH?Q.`2R9Z9R2^1J9R9E2<[email protected]`^LbVIeJ2J.ZZ@0? ?@2G@9HZ1?10.<9?9K2?9@J6?Q9><.??.09>/.9JK>.J??@3@162>0.E0.>.J?2?9G.>@ZefL6?@ H.;2JH?Q2?efLR.2>.2JHH.>9>?2J31>.@Z?Q.`[email protected]?39J2;2JJ.0?Q2?G9@<2?.>?Q.

LFL6_0H.0@0?Q.`^LI
j>.@[email protected]@0:G.J?89@<2?.>LFL6_0H.02JH`^L `10>12J??@LFL>.R?9@J>[email protected]>R<2>>9Z9.H2>2k0@1E ajbTj?9<9?32JH^9>R.<<2J.@1>V@RR1E2JR3R<2>>9Z9R2?9@JIDk0@1EajbR2?.K@0369JR<1H.> /19<H9JK>2JH>?01R?10.>@Z2J2RR.>>@03RQ202R?.02JH;9>R.<<2J.@1>>?01R?10.>J@? R<2>>9Z9.H9J2J3>E.R9Z9R@RR1E2JR39JR<1H9JK6/1?J@?/.<9;9?.H?@62K09R1<?102< /19<H9JK>IgQ9>@RR1E2JR3R<2>>9Z9R2?9@JH@.>J@?2<<@d2J3K2?Q.09JK>@ZE.0>@J>Z@0 R9G9R6>@R92<@00.<9K9@1>Z1JR?9@J>I
lmnlopqqrstuvwqxxwyvzrwxmnn
{p|}pu~p}rtqurpmly
nl
trxln
nypln
mmln
s}pt
;S.J3@JP/d><2dIR@;

7.j
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

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

/01*
101
1/
2-
34-5671

89++:
1
*-.-1
/

*-
;
2

0*
. 2-

/
//1
;
2

0*-3<==->89
+++:?+9+3
66@1

22
A*B;
*
/
;
2
22 0* 2

*C
D*

;
2

0*-.-
-*-
;@
A

22
12 0
4E5
11 /
1

@1 2

2. 2@1 2

2. 212
1*
2;
1*2
212 *
1
2

*

2

*
)*4E5
11 /
112
01

22 A0
*B;*

11

+F1
*B;A

2

*
1 2
2 @
0 11 /

*
**

1 2
2 1;A
2
12 01

1*
G*1
*B;1*
*12
01

0*-
;@
0

4E512
01

/

-.-1
F+
F+

/
22
2 4@512
01

@H
/4@53@26
11 /
112
01

/

-.-
1
FF+12

**
0 2
1

/

*
00
*
*
0/
0
/ /
1*
1;1
1
2 2

0 1
?1

0

1
/

A

/

?1)*
B;1
*-
;@

/
22
24@5
12 01

A
2

1 0
*
*
0/
0
/ /

0
1
2 1

/ /
3<==

1*/*

/*6
)*
0*-
;@
1

;

012
01

;
2

0*
-.-

2
2

;
2

0-1
89+++
/ *
2

/

-1
+9+3
6G

;0*B;A
*20
/ /

0 1 2 *
0/
/
1/
*;
;
2
11 /
12

)*-.-2*
0/
*
1

11 /

1 A*
1*
11 /
112
01

-.-)
2+I
2*

J 02

22 A
1/
11 /
0
4E594@1 2
2 25
0F

:
0/
11 /
)*-
;@
1
21 2

//
J
2FFK

:
0
1**
J
11 /
2

0

4E512
01

A
2
+/
3-.-)
2+I?+I+6G*1
*
11 /
2

;
*B;J1+/
A*1*
;
2

0*
11 /
120

4E512
01

*-.-;0*B;*
2

1 2
2 9
A*1*A

D*

;
2

0*C*-
L12

0 21M
1

M
1
0G
@
34MCN56

+0
;
2

*
/
A*1*A
/*2@
;O
C001N
2@

;

7.j
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

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

*+0123242567

1+
,+809+
0
,
*, *
*:
*

78;71
* ,
<
0==*
>
*+

=+;
:>
,
?
** 1
*
*,
=*

@*

11
:
,+A ,0==*
,B-01223242C6
D*@ *
,:E
=+0E

++0
=
,

F+G::
,
+0E
==1*+G:+

,
=1
1,+;
:>
*:
,

=+0H*:+

+;
:>
*
1,
*E+?IB
** 1
**,
=*

E+*+

,
,,
E ,

* ,
,
*

:D*
+0
*,
,
+

=+;
:>

11
:+A ,
0==*
,F+

** =
+G:
;
1,
*E+;A;0
; F+
** 1
**,
=*

1
,+;A;
**
,

** 1

=J ,,

=
=1
*

:*

++D*+*
** 1
**,
=*

=
+
;
:>
?IB
=
=+;
:>
*
E+

** 1
**,
=*

=

* ,
1
,

:+0

,,J +

=+;
:>

11
:+A ,
0==*
,
*
=

+J
=+0F+J +,1

++
,+

=
=

+
1
7=

*+
+
** 1
**,
=*

=
+;
:>

,-?>B6
=
,,
E+1
11
*
==*+
*+

;
==

:
,
,

+

I, *+
+
*,
=*

*+
+
E:78;*

+;
:>
=

+
G:

++
:
,:
** 1
*
=+;
:>
+
:
,
+
;A;0
+;
+
+

11
:+A ,0==*
,

,,

+:
,

=+809
1+,+0

F+0J +
78;

1=
,,
,

+

**
+
1
,
+

-012232C46

;*
24C+;>

+

*+,
,
1
*
J

*

@

:
,

=+;7=
=+;
:>
*

+
:
,

+0;A;
K
+;

==*E,,=
*
*
*,
,
*

<
E:E
+
1= ,+

E,,
+1

*
=*
1,E+

7.j
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!"#$%&'!$#(')
* +

,
,
-
+
*.
/*, ,
*

,
,
++*
0
*
0
12+
2*++
2*
3

/4

3562
72+

2283-9

*
/

7.j
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!"#$%&%!"#$'
(#)(
)*+
+)

+,$,#"!"#$

7.j
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

!
" #! $

!
%

&$&

'

&$&
(' )
*% )

+

,++

"
-

%'-

.
+

#'/0123!20! 452

)6378# 9

!
" #! $

9 0
(
#+%

+
:( )
*% )

+

,++

&$& & $'7'46 ;) 3).& ; ' $

7<
#+%

=>%,++

&$& & $'<'
;) 3). ?

:
@@
,:
+ :%
+
+%

:

&$& & $'<'76 ;) 3). ?
:( =>%,++

&$& & $''$ ;) 3).& ; '

$
-

=>%,++

A
8>%

&$& & $''
7 ;) 3).& ; '

$
#+%

:( A
8>% =>%,++

"
-

% #
'

&$& & $''
< ;) 3). & .
-%+' & ; '

$
#+%

-> ( +(,++

&$& & $''
;) 3). ?
:( -> ( +(,++

&$& & $'6'7 ;) 3).& ; '

$
#+%

:( -> ( +(,++

"
-

% #
'

&$& & $'
'4$ ;) 3). & .
-%+' & ; '

7.j
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.j
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment J - Approved_ Agreement_COC Owners of 650 Cape Breton - 2022-09-06 (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844.000.001
September 13, 2024

APPENDIX E
Updated Geological and Soil Analysis

7.k
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  [email protected] www.engeo.com
Project No.
20844.000.001
October 3, 2022
Latest Revision September 13, 2024
Mr. David Smith
c/o Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Subject: Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)
650 Cape Breton Drive
Pacifica, California

LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Dear Mr. Smith:

We are providing this limited geotechnical reconnaissance and soil analysis as required in Section 2.B.7 of the agreement between the City of Pacifica and Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), property owner of 650 Cape Breton Drive (Property) (“Agreement”). Section 2.B.7 of the Agreement states “A geological and soils analysis of the site and conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the soil and geological conditions on potential grading, excavations, street and utility improvements, and structures.” We performed a site visit at the Property on Friday, September 16, 2022, and outline our observations and arena soil relocation recommendations below.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Property is located at 650 Cape Breton Drive in Pacifica, California (Figure 1). Based on discussions with you, we understand that 650 Cape Breton Drive contains a large 30,000-square-foot arena that was used by previous owners for equestrian purposes. Under previous ownership, the arena floor was covered with 1 to 3 inches of loose sandy material (arena soil) amounting to approximately 100 to 300 cubic yards of material. INC removed the arena soil from the floor and stockpiled it around the perimeter of the arena. Some arena soil was used to fill sandbags for erosion control measures around the site. The extent of displaced arena soil is depicted in the Site Plan, Figure 2.

As outlined in the Agreement between INC and the City of Pacifica, INC was cited for “Illegal Grading” for the actions described above. INC has agreed to obtain a retroactive grading permit for the displaced arena soil from the site. No further earthwork is proposed as part of this project.

Remaining work entails installation of best management practices (BMPs) to stabilize the displaced soil in place.

Additionally, a carport is proposed to bring the existing single-family residence into conformance with requirements of Hillside Preservation District. The proposed carport is to be prefabricated construction.

7.k
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Mr. David Smith 20844.000.001
Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), 650 Cape Breton Drive October 3, 2022 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Latest Revision September 13, 2024

Page 2 ends

GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND
We reviewed regional geologic maps and aerial photographs within the vicinity of the Property.

Based on review of a geologic map prepared by Pampeyan (1994), the Property is mapped within Holocene-aged artificial fill (Qf1), Holocene-age slope wash, ravine fill, and colluvium (Qsr) underlain by Cretaceous and Jurassic-age greenstone of the Franciscan Complex (fg). Unit 1 of the artificial fill is described as poorly consolidated to well-consolidated gravel, sand, silt, and rock fragments with thickness varying by type of application and site. The Qsr is described to be unconsolidated to moderately consolidated deposits of sand, silt, clay, and rock fragments accumulated by slow downslope movement of weathered rock debris and soil. Pampeyan also notes that these deposits range between 5 to 20 feet thick depending on location along a slope.

The fg is described as dark-green to red, altered basaltic volcanic rocks, including flows, pillow lava, breccia, tuff, and minor related intrusive rock with strength varying between friable to hard depending on rock type and degree of weathering.

There are no known active faults crossing the Property; however, Pampeyan maps an unnamed fault trending northeast-southwest just north of the Property. Also, the San Andreas fault is mapped approximately 1.5 miles east of the Property (Reference 3). Pampeyan also mapped approximate locations of shallow landslides based on review of aerial photos from 1968 and shows one landslide within the vicinity of the Property (Figure 3). The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

Based on review of publicly available aerial photographs, a landslide occurred on the southern side of the Property. The landslide appears to be surficial in nature. Addressing this landslide is beyond the scope of this retroactive grading permit project.

According to the readily available aerial photographs, the area surrounding the Property appeared to be steeply sloping terrain with dense vegetation. Prior to development of the existing Property around 1968 or soon thereafter, the area was vacant, densely vegetated sloping terrain (Reference 5). According to topography mapped on topographic and geologic maps produced before and after development of the Property, some of the development appears to have been cut to a lower elevation during development; however, some placement of fill was likely used during development of the Property to create relatively level grades.

SITE VISIT AND SOIL ANALYSIS
On September 16, 2022, we visited the Property to inspect current site conditions and discuss proposed arena soil relocation options. We observed several locations where arena soil was relocated around the perimeter of the arena, as well as sandbags for erosion control measures throughout the site (Figure 2). The sandbags appeared to be in serviceable condition; however, some sandbags were damaged causing soil to disperse.

At the time of our site visit, we collected a bulk sample of the existing arena soil for laboratory testing. We classify the soil as gray silty sand, and the laboratory test performed produced a moderate dry density value of 119.4 per cubic foot and a relatively low moisture content value of

5.7 percent. The complete laboratory results can be found in Appendix D of the Environmental Sampling Results – Soil Stockpiles report dated June 11, 2024 (Reference 1).

7.k
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Mr. David Smith 20844.000.001
Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), 650 Cape Breton Drive October 3, 2022 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Latest Revision September 13, 2024

Page 3 ends

A subsequent site visit was performed on May 16, 2024, to confirm present day conditions match those outlined in the September 16, 2022, site visit. The only notable change in condition is a growth of vegetation around some stockpiled arena soil and existing sandbags. Pictures taken during the recent site visit depicting present day conditions are provided on the site plan, Figure 2.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The scope of this project is limited to installation of BMPs to stabilize the displaced soil in its existing location. No placement of fill, further stockpiling, or other earthwork requiring compaction is included in the scope of this project.

Erosion Control
BMPs should be selected for long-term suitability. Arena soil should have debris removed. Care should be taken to protect existing established vegetation. Denuded soil should then be hydroseeded to establish vegetation for long-term erosion protection. The limits of arena soil requiring hydroseed application are depicted in the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Foundation Recommendations
The proposed carport is to be prefabricated construction. The carport should be anchored into the ground following the manufacturers’ requirements. Foundations may be required for carport anchors. Foundations should be embedded a minimum of 24 inches below the adjacent grade, a minimum of 18 inches in diameter, and support a maximum allowable load of 1,000 pounds.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Emily Mahon Kevin J. McFadden, PE
Robert H. Boeche, CEG
hjr/rhb/cb
Attachments: Selected References
Figures 1 through 3

7.k
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844.000.001
October 3, 2022
Latest Revision September 13, 2024

SELECTED REFERENCES

1. ENGEO. 2024. Environmental Sampling Results – Soil Stockpiles, Iglesia ni Cristo.

June 11, 2024. Project No. 20844.000.001.

2. Pampeyan, Earl H. 1994, Geologic Map of the Montara Mountain and San Mateo 7-1/2’ Quadrangles, San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2390.

3. UC Santa Barbara. 2001. Aerial Photography database; Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 10-27 and 10-28, Scale 1:12,000, January 1, 1965; Flight HM_2001_USA, Frame 3042-74 and 3042-73, Scale 1:10,800, January 1, 2001.

4. U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. accessed September 30, 2022, at: https://www.usgs.gov/naturalhazards/earthquake-hazards/faults.

5. Historic Aerials, Aerial Photography database. various aerial photographs dated between 1946 and 2020. www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

7.k
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844.000.001
October 3, 2022
Latest Revision September 13, 2024

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Figure 3 – Geologic Map

7.k
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) N
Expect Excellence
0 FEET 2000

VICINITY MAP
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
20844.000.001
SITE
1 KJM

7.k
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

7.k
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) N
Expect Excellence
0 FEET 2000

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
20844.000.001
AS SHOWN 3

ANTICLINE SYNCLINE

AXIS OF FOLD

EXPLANATION

GEOLOGIC CONTACT-DASHED WHERE

GRADATIONAL OR APPROXIMATELY LOCATED

FAULT-DASHED WHERE INFERRED,

DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED, QUERIED
WHERE EXISTENCE IS DOUBTFUL.

SITE
Qya YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
Qac COARSE-GRAINED ALLUVIUM
Qsr SLOPE WASH, RAVINE FILL, AND COLLUVIUM
Qyl YOUNGER LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS
Qf1 ARTIFICIAL FILL
Qol OLDER LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS
Tsl SANDSTONE, SHALE, AND CONGLOMERATE
fg GREENSTONE
fs SANDSTONE
fc CHERT
fl LIMESTONE
fsr SHEARED ROCK
sp SERPENTINITE
KJM

7.k
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment K - Geotechnical Report (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844.000.001
September 13, 2024

APPENDIX D
Environmental Lab Testing Summary Letter

7.l
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
Project No.
20844.000.001
June 11, 2024
Mr. David Smith
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Subject: Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)
650 Cape Breton Drive
Pacifica, California
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS – SOIL STOCKPILES
Dear Mr. Smith:

We are pleased to submit the findings of our limited environmental soil sampling undertaken at the subject property located in Pacifica, California (Site). The approximately 20.7-acre Site is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 018-170-060 and 022-320-200. The Site consists of several structures formerly used as part of an equestrian facility (including an arena), a single-family residence, and open space. Approximately 250 to 300 cubic yards of soil is stockpiled on the perimeter of the arena. We understand that the stockpiled soil was generated from relocating soil that previously covered the arena’s existing surface.

On June 27, 2023, we collected four soil samples (Figure 1) from the stockpiles for laboratory analysis. Soil samples were collected using hand tools and placed in laboratory-provided, 4-ounce glass jars. Sample containers were labeled with a unique sample identification, placed in an ice-chilled cooler, and transported under documented chain-of-custody to a fixed-base, state-accredited laboratory for analysis as described below.

The four samples were analyzed discretely for the following. • Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Test Method 8260 • Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) US EPA Test Method 8270C Additionally, we instructed the laboratory to combine samples into one 4:1 composite sample for the following analyses.
• Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) by US EPA Test Method 8081A • Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel and motor oil (TPH-d and -mo) by EPA Test Method 8015 with silica gel cleanup
• CAM 17 metals (EPA Method 6010/7471)
• pH

7.l
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 20844.000.001
Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), 650 Cape Breton Drive June 11, 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS – SOIL STOCKPILES Page 2 We compared laboratory results to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)1for residential direct exposure and to regional background levels for metals, particularly for arsenic2. Laboratory results are summarized below.
• TPH-g, TPH-mo, VOCs, SVOCs, and OCPs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits.
• TPH-d was detected in the composite sample, with a reported concentration of 5.61 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). This concentration is below the ESL of 260 mg/kg. • Metals were detected in the composite sample, with reported concentrations below screening levels and/or within the range of regional background concentrations.

A copy of the laboratory analytical report is presented in Appendix A.

Based on our review of the soil analytical results, the reported concentrations of target analytes are below respective residential screening levels and/or within expected background concentrations for the region. The stockpiled soil (adjacent to the arena) appears to be suitable for residential reuse from an environmental perspective. Alternatively, the soil could be offhauled to a Class III municipal landfill.

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

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Adrianna Lundberg Nadine Periat, PG
aml/np/cb
Attachments: Figure 1 – Sample Location Site Plan
Laboratory Report – Torrent Laboratory, Inc.
1 SFRWQCB ESLs, Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Level, Residential: Shallow Soil Exposure, Table S-1, 2019 (Rev.2)
2 Duverge. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region, December 2011

7.l
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844000.001
June 11, 2024
FIGURE 1
Sample Location Site Plan

7.l
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 1-S1 1-S2 1-S3 1-S4 N Expect Excellence 0 FEET 60 SAMPLE LOCATION SITE PLAN 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA 20844.000.001 AS SHOWN 1 EXPLANATION Sample Location (ENGEO,2024) 1-S4 Cape Breton Drive Stockpile of Arena Soil Parcel Boundary Project Site 7.l Packet Pg. 610
Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) 20844000.001
June 11, 2024

LABORATORY REPORT
Torrent Laboratory, Inc.

7.l
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Engeo Inc (SJ)
6399 San Ignacio Ave, Suite 150
San Jose, California 95119
Tel: 408-574-4900
Fax: 888-279-2698
RE: 650 Cape Breston Dr
Torrent Laboratory, Inc. received 4 sample(s) on June 27, 2023 for the analyses presented in the following Report.

Dear Patrick Lam:

Work Order No.: 2306263
All data for associated QC met EPA or laboratory specification(s) except where noted in the case narrative.

Torrent Laboratory, Inc. is certified by the State of California, ELAP #1991. If you have any questions regarding these test results, please feel free to contact the Project Management Team at (408)263-5258; ext 204.

Date
July 05, 2023
Kathie Evans
Project Manager
Total Page Count: 46 Page 1 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Date: 7/5/2023
Client: Engeo Inc (SJ)
Project: 650 Cape Breston Dr
Work Order: 2306263

CASE NARRATIVE
Unless otherwise indicated in the following narrative, no issues encountered with the receiving, preparation, analysis or reporting of the results associated with this work order.

Unless otherwise indicated in the following narrative, no results have been method and/or field blank corrected.

Reported results relate only to the items/samples tested by the laboratory.

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Torrent Laboratory, Inc.

Total Page Count: 46 Page 2 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Report prepared for: Patrick Lam
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Date Received: 06/27/23
Date Reported: 07/05/23
Sample Result Summary
1-S1 2306263-001
Parameters: Analysis DF MDL PQL Results Unit
Method
All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
1-S2 2306263-002
Parameters: Analysis DF MDL PQL Results Unit
Method
All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
1-S3 2306263-003
Parameters: Analysis DF MDL PQL Results Unit
Method
All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
1-S4 2306263-004
Parameters: Analysis DF MDL PQL Results Unit
Method
All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.

Composite 1-S1-S4 2306263-005
Parameters: Analysis DF MDL PQL Results Unit
Method
Arsenic SW6010B 1 0.15 1.30 1.58 mg/Kg
Barium SW6010B 1 0.055 5.00 163 mg/Kg
Chromium SW6010B 1 0.075 5.00 14.4 mg/Kg
Cobalt SW6010B 1 0.070 5.00 7.20 mg/Kg
Copper SW6010B 1 0.20 5.00 5.40 mg/Kg
Nickel SW6010B 1 0.50 5.00 14.0 mg/Kg
Vanadium SW6010B 1 0.10 5.00 30.9 mg/Kg
Zinc SW6010B 1 0.30 5.00 56.5 mg/Kg
TPH as Diesel (SG) SW8015B 1 0.85 2.0 5.61 mg/Kg
pH SW9045D 1 0.10 2.00 7.91 SU
Total Page Count: 46 Page 3 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 10:10
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S1
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-001A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
N-Nitrosodimethylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0469 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Phenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0133 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2-Chlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0477 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0131 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0146 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzyl Alcohol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0205 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0293 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0680 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Bis(2-chlorisopropyl) ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 3-/4-Methylphenol (p-/m-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0313 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0132 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Hexachloroethane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0171 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Nitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0128 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Isophorone SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0254 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,4-Dimethylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0228 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzoic Acid SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0417 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00979 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,4-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0393 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Naphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,6-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0358 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00834 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0338 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Hexachlorocyclopentadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0129 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0359 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0334 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2-Chloronaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,4-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Dimethyl phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0142 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,3-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Acenaphthylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00828 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,6-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0113 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 1,2-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0158 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 4 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 10:10
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S1
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-001A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Acenaphthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,4-Dinitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0776 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 4-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0547 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Dibenzofuran SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0112 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,4-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0121 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0276 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0315 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Diethylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0136 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Fluorene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0134 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Diphenylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0130 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Azobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.114 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00823 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Hexachlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00866 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Pentachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0250 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Phenanthrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00891 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Carbazole SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Di-n-butylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Fluoranthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.01000 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.147 0.147 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0210 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Chrysene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0152 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0153 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Di-n-Octylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0123 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzo(b)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK benzo(k)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00816 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0138 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0127 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0167 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Pyridine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:24 MK Acceptance Limits
2-Fluorophenol (S) SW8270C 25 - 121 51.1 % 476049 06/29/23 2:24 MK Phenol-d6 (S) SW8270C 24 - 113 59.6 % 476049 06/29/23 2:24 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 5 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 10:10
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S1
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-001A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) SW8270C 19 - 122 67.8 % 476049 06/29/23 2:24 MK 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) SW8270C 45 - 143 73.6 % 476049 06/29/23 2:24 MK Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) SW8270C 23 - 120 55.2 % 476049 06/29/23 2:24 MK p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) SW8270C 18 - 137 99.6 % 476049 06/29/23 2:24 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 6 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 10:10
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S1
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-001A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Dichlorodifluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0012 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Chloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Vinyl Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Bromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0027 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Chloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0030 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Trichlorofluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,1-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Freon 113 SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Methylene Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0071 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV trans-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV MTBE SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV TBA SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.012 0.050 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Diisopropyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,1-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Ethyl tert-Butyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV cis-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 2,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Bromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Chloroform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0024 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Carbon Tetrachloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,1,1-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,1-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV TAME SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Trichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Dibromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Bromodichloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV cis-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Toluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Tetrachloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV trans-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,1,2-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Dibromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,3-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2-Dibromoethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Chlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Ethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 7 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 10:10
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S1
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-001A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV m,p-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0032 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV o-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Styrene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Bromoform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Isopropyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV n-Propylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Bromobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 2-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2,3-Trichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 4-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV tert-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV sec-Butyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV p-Isopropyltoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV n-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Hexachlorobutadiene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV Naphthalene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV 2-Butanone SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.0100 ND 06/30/23 17:06 HV (S) Dibromofluoromethane SW8260B 59.8 - 148 77.8 % 476092 06/30/23 17:06 HV (S) Toluene-d8 SW8260B 55.2 - 133 97.5 % 476092 06/30/23 17:06 HV (S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B 55.8 - 141 94.1 % 476092 06/30/23 17:06 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 8 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 10:10
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S1
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-001A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152443
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
TPH as Gasoline SW8260B(TPH 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.043 0.10 ND 06/30/23 )
17:06 HV
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B(TPH 72.6 % 476092 06/30/23 )

43.9 - 127 17:06 HV
Total Page Count: 46 Page 9 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 11:55
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-002A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
N-Nitrosodimethylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0469 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Phenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0133 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2-Chlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0477 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0131 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0146 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzyl Alcohol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0205 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0293 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0680 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Bis(2-chlorisopropyl) ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 3-/4-Methylphenol (p-/m-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0313 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0132 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Hexachloroethane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0171 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Nitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0128 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Isophorone SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0254 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,4-Dimethylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0228 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzoic Acid SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0417 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00979 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,4-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0393 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Naphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,6-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0358 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00834 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0338 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Hexachlorocyclopentadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0129 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0359 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0334 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2-Chloronaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,4-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Dimethyl phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0142 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,3-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Acenaphthylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00828 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,6-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0113 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 1,2-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0158 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 10 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 11:55
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-002A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Acenaphthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,4-Dinitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0776 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 4-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0547 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Dibenzofuran SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0112 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,4-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0121 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0276 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0315 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Diethylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0136 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Fluorene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0134 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Diphenylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0130 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Azobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.114 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00823 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Hexachlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00866 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Pentachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0250 0.288 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Phenanthrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00891 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Carbazole SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Di-n-butylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Fluoranthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.01000 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.147 0.147 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0210 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Chrysene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0152 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0153 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Di-n-Octylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0123 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzo(b)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK benzo(k)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00816 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0138 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0127 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0167 0.144 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Pyridine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.720 ND 06/29/23 2:52 MK Acceptance Limits
2-Fluorophenol (S) SW8270C 25 - 121 61.1 % 476049 06/29/23 2:52 MK Phenol-d6 (S) SW8270C 24 - 113 69.7 % 476049 06/29/23 2:52 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 11 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 11:55
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-002A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) SW8270C 19 - 122 70.4 % 476049 06/29/23 2:52 MK 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) SW8270C 45 - 143 81.3 % 476049 06/29/23 2:52 MK Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) SW8270C 23 - 120 72.7 % 476049 06/29/23 2:52 MK p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) SW8270C 18 - 137 103 % 476049 06/29/23 2:52 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 12 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 11:55
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-002A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Dichlorodifluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0012 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Chloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Vinyl Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Bromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0027 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Chloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0030 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Trichlorofluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,1-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Freon 113 SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Methylene Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0071 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV trans-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV MTBE SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV TBA SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.012 0.050 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Diisopropyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,1-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Ethyl tert-Butyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV cis-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 2,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Bromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Chloroform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0024 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Carbon Tetrachloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,1,1-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,1-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV TAME SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Trichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Dibromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Bromodichloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV cis-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Toluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Tetrachloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV trans-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,1,2-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Dibromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,3-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2-Dibromoethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Chlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Ethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 13 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 11:55
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-002A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV m,p-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0032 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV o-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Styrene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Bromoform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Isopropyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV n-Propylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Bromobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 2-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2,3-Trichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 4-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV tert-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV sec-Butyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV p-Isopropyltoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV n-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Hexachlorobutadiene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV Naphthalene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV 2-Butanone SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.0100 ND 06/30/23 17:36 HV (S) Dibromofluoromethane SW8260B 59.8 - 148 78.4 % 476092 06/30/23 17:36 HV (S) Toluene-d8 SW8260B 55.2 - 133 98.2 % 476092 06/30/23 17:36 HV (S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B 55.8 - 141 93.9 % 476092 06/30/23 17:36 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 14 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 11:55
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-002A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152443
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
TPH as Gasoline SW8260B(TPH 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.043 0.10 ND 06/30/23 )
17:36 HV
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B(TPH 73.3 % 476092 06/30/23 )

43.9 - 127 17:36 HV
Total Page Count: 46 Page 15 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:00
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-003A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
N-Nitrosodimethylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0469 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Phenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0133 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2-Chlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0477 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0131 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0146 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzyl Alcohol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0205 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0293 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0680 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Bis(2-chlorisopropyl) ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 3-/4-Methylphenol (p-/m-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0313 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0132 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Hexachloroethane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0171 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Nitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0128 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Isophorone SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0254 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,4-Dimethylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0228 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzoic Acid SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0417 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00979 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,4-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0393 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Naphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,6-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0358 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00834 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0338 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Hexachlorocyclopentadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0129 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0359 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0334 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2-Chloronaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,4-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Dimethyl phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0142 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,3-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Acenaphthylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00828 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,6-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0113 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 1,2-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0158 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 16 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:00
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-003A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Acenaphthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,4-Dinitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0776 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 4-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0547 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Dibenzofuran SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0112 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,4-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0121 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0276 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0315 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Diethylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0136 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Fluorene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0134 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Diphenylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0130 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Azobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.114 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00823 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Hexachlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00866 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Pentachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0250 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Phenanthrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00891 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Carbazole SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Di-n-butylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Fluoranthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.01000 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.147 0.147 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0210 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Chrysene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0152 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0153 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Di-n-Octylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0123 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzo(b)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK benzo(k)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00816 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0138 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0127 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0167 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Pyridine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:21 MK Acceptance Limits
2-Fluorophenol (S) SW8270C 25 - 121 1.94 S % 476049 06/29/23 3:21 MK Phenol-d6 (S) SW8270C 24 - 113 4.58 S % 476049 06/29/23 3:21 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 17 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:00
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-003A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) SW8270C 19 - 122 0.163 S % 476049 06/29/23 3:21 MK 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) SW8270C 45 - 143 69.4 % 476049 06/29/23 3:21 MK Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) SW8270C 23 - 120 60.2 % 476049 06/29/23 3:21 MK p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) SW8270C 18 - 137 85.8 % 476049 06/29/23 3:21 MK NOTE: S-surrogate outside of control limits due to possible matrix interference Total Page Count: 46 Page 18 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:00
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-003A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Dichlorodifluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0012 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Chloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Vinyl Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Bromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0027 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Chloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0030 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Trichlorofluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,1-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Freon 113 SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Methylene Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0071 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV trans-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV MTBE SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV TBA SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.012 0.050 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Diisopropyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,1-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Ethyl tert-Butyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV cis-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 2,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Bromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Chloroform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0024 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Carbon Tetrachloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,1,1-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,1-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV TAME SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Trichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Dibromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Bromodichloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV cis-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Toluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Tetrachloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV trans-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,1,2-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Dibromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,3-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2-Dibromoethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Chlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Ethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 19 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:00
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-003A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV m,p-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0032 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV o-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Styrene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Bromoform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Isopropyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV n-Propylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Bromobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 2-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2,3-Trichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 4-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV tert-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV sec-Butyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV p-Isopropyltoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV n-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Hexachlorobutadiene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV Naphthalene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV 2-Butanone SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.0100 ND 06/30/23 18:06 HV (S) Dibromofluoromethane SW8260B 59.8 - 148 76.3 % 476092 06/30/23 18:06 HV (S) Toluene-d8 SW8260B 55.2 - 133 99.0 % 476092 06/30/23 18:06 HV (S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B 55.8 - 141 93.9 % 476092 06/30/23 18:06 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 20 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:00
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-003A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152443
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
TPH as Gasoline SW8260B(TPH 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.043 0.10 ND 06/30/23 )
18:06 HV
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B(TPH 74.4 % 476092 06/30/23 )

43.9 - 127 18:06 HV
Total Page Count: 46 Page 21 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:05
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-004A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
N-Nitrosodimethylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0469 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Phenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0133 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2-Chlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0477 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0131 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0146 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzyl Alcohol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0205 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0293 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0680 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Bis(2-chlorisopropyl) ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 3-/4-Methylphenol (p-/m-Cresol) SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0313 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0132 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Hexachloroethane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0171 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Nitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0128 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Isophorone SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0254 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,4-Dimethylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0228 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzoic Acid SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0417 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00979 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0126 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,4-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0393 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Naphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,6-Dichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0358 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00834 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0338 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1-Methylnaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0122 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Hexachlorocyclopentadiene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0129 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0359 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0334 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2-Chloronaphthalene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0106 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,4-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Dimethyl phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0142 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,3-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0104 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Acenaphthylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00828 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,6-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0113 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 1,2-Dinitrobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0158 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 22 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:05
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-004A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Acenaphthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,4-Dinitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0776 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 4-Nitrophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0547 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Dibenzofuran SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0112 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,4-Dinitrotoluene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0121 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0276 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0315 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Diethylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0136 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Fluorene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0103 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0134 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Diphenylamine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0130 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Azobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.114 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00823 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Hexachlorobenzene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00866 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Pentachlorophenol SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0250 0.288 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Phenanthrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00932 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00891 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Carbazole SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0107 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Di-n-butylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0135 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Fluoranthene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.01000 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.147 0.147 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0210 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.118 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Chrysene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0152 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0153 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Di-n-Octylphthalate SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0123 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzo(b)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0120 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK benzo(k)fluorathene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00816 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.00980 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0138 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0127 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0167 0.144 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Pyridine SW8270C 1 mg/Kg 476049 0.0438 0.720 ND 06/29/23 3:49 MK Acceptance Limits
2-Fluorophenol (S) SW8270C 25 - 121 54.2 % 476049 06/29/23 3:49 MK Phenol-d6 (S) SW8270C 24 - 113 67.6 % 476049 06/29/23 3:49 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 23 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:05
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-004A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152320
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:46:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_BNA
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) SW8270C 19 - 122 63.7 % 476049 06/29/23 3:49 MK 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) SW8270C 45 - 143 83.7 % 476049 06/29/23 3:49 MK Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) SW8270C 23 - 120 71.5 % 476049 06/29/23 3:49 MK p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) SW8270C 18 - 137 105 % 476049 06/29/23 3:49 MK Total Page Count: 46 Page 24 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:05
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-004A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Dichlorodifluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0012 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Chloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Vinyl Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Bromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0027 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Chloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0030 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Trichlorofluoromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,1-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Freon 113 SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Methylene Chloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0071 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV trans-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV MTBE SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV TBA SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.012 0.050 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Diisopropyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,1-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Ethyl tert-Butyl ether SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV cis-1,2-Dichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 2,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Bromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Chloroform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0024 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Carbon Tetrachloride SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,1,1-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0021 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,1-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0022 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV TAME SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2-Dichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Trichloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Dibromomethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Bromodichloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0020 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV cis-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Toluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Tetrachloroethene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV trans-1,3-Dichloropropene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,1,2-Trichloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Dibromochloromethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,3-Dichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2-Dibromoethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Chlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Ethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 25 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:05
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-004A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152442
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV m,p-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0032 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV o-Xylene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Styrene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Bromoform SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Isopropyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV n-Propylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Bromobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 2-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2,3-Trichloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0019 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 4-Chlorotoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV tert-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV sec-Butyl Benzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0016 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV p-Isopropyltoluene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,3-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV n-Butylbenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2-Dichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0018 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Hexachlorobutadiene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0014 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0015 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV Naphthalene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0017 0.010 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV 2-Butanone SW8260B 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.0023 0.0100 ND 06/30/23 18:36 HV (S) Dibromofluoromethane SW8260B 59.8 - 148 76.7 % 476092 06/30/23 18:36 HV (S) Toluene-d8 SW8260B 55.2 - 133 97.2 % 476092 06/30/23 18:36 HV (S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B 55.8 - 141 93.7 % 476092 06/30/23 18:36 HV Total Page Count: 46 Page 26 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 / 12:05
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-004A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152443
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/30/23 11:38:00AM
Prep Analyst: HVYAS
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
TPH as Gasoline SW8260B(TPH 1 mg/Kg 476092 0.043 0.10 ND 06/30/23 )
18:36 HV
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene SW8260B(TPH 79.3 % 476092 06/30/23 )

43.9 - 127 18:36 HV
Total Page Count: 46 Page 27 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 /
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
Composite 1-S1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-005A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152309
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/27/23 6:50:00PM
Prep Analyst: TNGO
Prep Method: 7471BP
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Mercury SW7471B 1 mg/Kg 475977 0.083 0.50 ND 06/28/23 13:22 BJAY Total Page Count: 46 Page 28 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 /
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
Composite 1-S1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-005A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152307
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/27/23 6:30:00PM
Prep Analyst: TNGO
Prep Method: 3050B
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
Antimony SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.050 5.00 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Arsenic SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.15 1.30 1.58 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Barium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.055 5.00 163 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Beryllium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.055 5.00 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Cadmium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.10 0.750 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Chromium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.075 5.00 14.4 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Cobalt SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.070 5.00 7.20 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Copper SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.20 5.00 5.40 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Lead SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.10 3.00 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Molybdenum SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.050 5.00 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Nickel SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.50 5.00 14.0 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Selenium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.35 1.10 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Silver SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.15 0.500 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Thallium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.20 5.00 ND 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Vanadium SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.10 5.00 30.9 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Zinc SW6010B 1 mg/Kg 476005 0.30 5.00 56.5 06/28/23 11:21 ERR Total Page Count: 46 Page 29 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 /
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
Composite 1-S1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-005A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152325
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 2:21:00PM
Prep Analyst: AKIZ
Prep Method: 3546_OCP
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
The results shown below are reported using their MDL.
alpha-BHC SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0025 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA gamma-BHC (Lindane) SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0071 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA beta-BHC SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0044 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA delta-BHC SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0065 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Heptachlor SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0027 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Aldrin SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0029 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Heptachlor Epoxide SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0031 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA gamma-Chlordane SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.015 0.030 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA alpha-Chlordane SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0036 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA 4,4'-DDE SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0061 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Endosulfan I SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0029 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Dieldrin SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0025 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Endrin SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0079 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA 4,4'-DDD SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0064 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Endosulfan II SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0034 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA 4,4'-DDT SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0074 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Endrin Aldehyde SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0051 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Methoxychlor SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.026 0.060 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Endosulfan Sulfate SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0051 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Endrin Ketone SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.0043 0.020 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Chlordane, Technical SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.027 0.20 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Toxaphene SW8081B 10 mg/Kg 476015 0.22 0.50 ND 06/28/23 23:28 LA Acceptance Limits
Tetrachloro-M-Xylene (S) SW8081B 48 - 125 86.8 % 476015 06/28/23 23:28 LA Decachlorobiphenyl (S) SW8081B 38 - 135 97.3 % 476015 06/28/23 23:28 LA NOTE: Sample diluted due to the nature of the sample matrix (dark colored extract) Total Page Count: 46 Page 30 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 /
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
Composite 1-S1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-005A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152322
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/28/23 12:00:00PM
Prep Analyst: ROME
Prep Method: 9045C
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
pH SW9045D 1 SU 475994 0.10 2.00 7.91 06/28/23 12:00 RE Total Page Count: 46 Page 31 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:

Date Reported: 07/05/23
Date/Time Received: 06/27/23, 3:36 pm
Engeo Inc (SJ)
Patrick Lam
Client Sample ID:

Date/Time Sampled:

Project Number:

Project Name/Location:
06/27/23 /
20844.000.001
650 Cape Breston Dr
Composite 1-S1-S4
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 2306263-005A
SDG:

Prep Batch ID: 1152275
Prep Batch Date/Time: 6/27/23 10:31:00AM
Prep Analyst: MSAT
Prep Method: 3546_TPHSG
Parameters:

Analytical
Q Units Batch
DF MDL PQL Results
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
TPH as Diesel (SG) SW8015B 1 mg/Kg 476018 0.85 2.0 5.61 x 06/28/23 21:38 SN TPH as Motor Oil (SG) SW8015B 1 mg/Kg 476018 3.2 10 ND 06/28/23 21:38 SN Acceptance Limits
Pentacosane (S) SW8015B 40 - 129 87.0 % 476018 06/28/23 21:38 SN NOTE: x- Chromatographic pattern does not resemble typical diesel reference standard; unknown organics within diesel range quantified as diesel.

Total Page Count: 46 Page 32 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MB Summary Report
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8015B
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/27/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
mg/Kg
3546_TPHSG 1152275
Soil 476001
2306263
6/27/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
TPH as Diesel (SG) 1.55 0.85 2.0
TPH as Motor Oil (SG) ND 3.2 10
Pentacosane (S) 96.6
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW6010B
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/27/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
mg/Kg
3050B 1152307
Soil 476005
2306263
6/28/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
Antimony 0.050 5.00 ND
Arsenic 0.15 1.30 ND
Barium ND 0.055 5.00
Beryllium ND 0.055 5.00
Cadmium ND 0.10 0.750
Chromium 0.090 0.075 5.00
Cobalt ND 0.070 5.00
Copper ND 0.20 5.00
Lead ND 0.10 3.00
Molybdenum 0.14 0.050 5.00
Nickel ND 0.50 5.00
Selenium ND 0.35 1.10
Silver ND 0.15 0.500
Thallium ND 0.55 5.00
Vanadium ND 0.10 5.00
Zinc ND 0.30 5.00
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW7471B
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/27/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
mg/Kg
7471BP 1152309
Soil 475977
2306263
6/28/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
Mercury ND 0.083 0.50
Total Page Count: 46 Page 33 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MB Summary Report
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8270C
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/28/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
ug/Kg
3546_BNA 1152320
Soil 476049
2306263
6/28/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND 46.9 720
Phenol ND 43.8 288
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ND 13.3 144
2-Chlorophenol ND 47.7 288
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 13.1 144
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 14.6 144
Benzyl Alcohol ND 20.5 288
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 13.5 144
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ND 29.3 288
N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) ND 68.0 720

12.6 144 ND
3-/4-Methylphenol (p-/m-Cresol) ND 31.3 288
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND 13.2 144
Hexachloroethane ND 17.1 144
Nitrobenzene ND 12.8 144
Isophorone ND 12.2 144
2-Nitrophenol ND 25.4 288
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 22.8 288
Benzoic Acid ND 41.7 288
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND 9.79 144
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether ND 12.6 144
2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 39.3 288
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 11.8 144
Naphthalene ND 10.6 144
2,6-Dichlorophenol ND 35.8 288
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene ND 8.34 144
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 33.8 288
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 10.4 144
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 12.2 144
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 12.9 144
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 35.9 288
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 33.4 288
2-Chloronaphthalene ND 10.6 144
1,4-Dinitrobenzene ND 10.3 144
Dimethyl phthalate ND 14.2 720
1,3-Dinitrobenzene ND 10.4 144
Acenaphthylene 8.28 144 ND
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 11.3 144
1,2-Dinitrobenzene ND 15.8 144
Acenaphthene 10.7 144 ND
2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 77.6 720
4-Nitrophenol ND 54.7 720
Dibenzofuran ND 11.2 144
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 12.1 144
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 27.6 288
Total Page Count: 46 Page 34 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MB Summary Report
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8270C
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/28/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
ug/Kg
3546_BNA 1152320
Soil 476049
2306263
6/28/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 31.5 288
Diethylphthalate 161 13.6 720
Fluorene ND 10.3 144
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether ND 9.32 144
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND 13.4 288
Diphenylamine ND 13.0 144
Azobenzene 114 144 ND
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether ND 8.23 144
Hexachlorobenzene ND 8.66 144
Pentachlorophenol ND 25.0 288
Phenanthrene ND 9.32 144
Anthracene 8.91 144 ND
Carbazole ND 10.7 144
Di-n-butylphthalate ND 13.5 144
Fluoranthene ND 10.0 147
Benzidine ND 147 144
Pyrene ND 12.0 144
Butylbenzylphthalate ND 21.0 720
Benzo(a)anthracene ND 9.80 144
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND 118 144
Chrysene ND 15.2 144
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND 15.3 720
Di-n-Octylphthalate ND 12.3 144
Benzo(b)fluorathene ND 12.0 144
benzo(k)fluorathene ND 8.16 144
Benzo(a)pyrene ND 9.80 144
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene ND 13.8 144
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 12.7 144
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 12.7 144
Pyridine ND 43.8 720
2-Fluorophenol (S) 79.6
Phenol-d6 (S) 80.8
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) 74.9
2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) 84.0
Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) 88.4
p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) 109
Total Page Count: 46 Page 35 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MB Summary Report
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8081B
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/28/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
ug/Kg
3546_OCP 1152325
Soil 476015
2306263
6/28/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
alpha-BHC ND 0.25 2.0
gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 0.71 2.0
beta-BHC ND 0.44 2.0
delta-BHC ND 0.65 2.0
Heptachlor ND 0.27 2.0
Aldrin 0.29 2.0 ND
Heptachlor Epoxide ND 0.31 2.0
gamma-Chlordane ND 1.5 3.0
alpha-Chlordane ND 0.36 2.0
4,4'-DDE ND 0.61 2.0
Endosulfan I ND 0.29 2.0
Dieldrin ND 0.25 2.0
Endrin ND 0.79 2.0
4,4'-DDD ND 0.64 2.0
Endosulfan II ND 0.34 2.0
4,4'-DDT ND 0.74 2.0
Endrin Aldehyde ND 0.51 2.0
Methoxychlor ND 2.6 6.0
Endosulfan Sulfate ND 0.51 2.0
Endrin Ketone ND 0.43 2.0
Chlordane, Technical ND 2.7 20
Toxaphene ND 22 50
Tetrachloro-M-Xylene (S) 74.6
Decachlorobiphenyl (S) 79.3
Total Page Count: 46 Page 36 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MB Summary Report
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8260B
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/30/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
mg/Kg
5035 1152442
Soil 476092
2306263
6/30/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.0012 0.010
Chloromethane ND 0.0018 0.010
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.0020 0.010
Bromomethane ND 0.0027 0.010
Chloroethane ND 0.0030 0.010
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0021 0.010
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.0020 0.010
Freon 113 ND 0.0019 0.010
Methylene Chloride ND 0.0071 0.010
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0021 0.010
MTBE ND 0.0023 0.010
TBA ND 0.012 0.050
Diisopropyl ether ND 0.0023 0.010
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0022 0.010
Ethyl tert-Butyl ether ND 0.0023 0.010
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0022 0.010
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.010
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0023 0.010
Chloroform ND 0.0024 0.010
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.0021 0.010
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0021 0.010
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0020 0.010
Benzene ND 0.0022 0.010
TAME ND 0.0023 0.010
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.0023 0.010
Trichloroethene ND 0.0018 0.010
Dibromomethane ND 0.0018 0.010
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.010
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.0020 0.010
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.0016 0.010
Toluene ND 0.0018 0.010
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.0017 0.010
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.0016 0.010
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0018 0.010
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.0019 0.010
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.0018 0.010
1,2-Dibromoethane ND 0.0018 0.010
Chlorobenzene ND 0.0018 0.010
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.010
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0019 0.010
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0032 0.010
o-Xylene ND 0.0017 0.010
Styrene ND 0.0016 0.010
Bromoform ND 0.0017 0.010
Isopropyl Benzene ND 0.0016 0.010
Total Page Count: 46 Page 37 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MB Summary Report
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8260B
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/30/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
mg/Kg
5035 1152442
Soil 476092
2306263
6/30/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.010
Bromobenzene ND 0.0018 0.010
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0019 0.010
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0018 0.010
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.010
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.010
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.010
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.010
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0014 0.010
sec-Butyl Benzene ND 0.0016 0.010
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.0015 0.010
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.010
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.010
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.0015 0.010
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0018 0.010
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane ND 0.0018 0.010
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0014 0.010
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.010
Naphthalene ND 0.0017 0.010
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.010
2-Butanone ND 0.0023 0.010
(S) Dibromofluoromethane 86.3
(S) Toluene-d8 97.6
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.3
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical SW8260B(TPH)
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/30/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
mg/Kg
5035GRO 1152443
Soil 476092
2306263
6/30/2023
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.

MDL PQL
Lab
Qualifier
TPH as Gasoline ND 0.043 0.10
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 82.1
Total Page Count: 46 Page 38 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) LCS/LCSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment.

Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/27/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
3546_TPHSG 1152275
SW8015B 6/27/2023 476001
mg/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
TPH as Diesel (SG) 87.0 73.5 0.85 16.5 30 2.0 25.0 1.55 40 - 110 TPH as Motor Oil (SG) ND 200 40 - 129
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/27/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
3050B 1152307
SW6010B 6/28/2023 476005
mg/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
Antimony 0.050 1.21 30 5.00 50 ND 100 98.8 80 - 120
Arsenic 0.15 1.42 30 1.30 50 ND 99.0 97.5 80 - 120
Barium 0.055 0.976 30 5.00 50 ND 103 102 80 - 120
Beryllium 0.055 0.985 30 5.00 50 ND 102 101 80 - 120
Cadmium 0.10 1.40 30 0.750 50 ND 101 99.5 80 - 120
Chromium 0.075 1.96 30 5.00 50 0.090 103 101 80 - 120
Cobalt 0.070 1.96 30 5.00 50 ND 103 101 80 - 120
Copper 0.20 1.90 30 5.00 50 ND 106 104 80 - 120
Lead 0.10 1.98 30 3.00 50 ND 102 100 80 - 120
Molybdenum 103 101 0.050 1.96 30 5.00 50 0.14 80 - 120
Nickel 0.50 0.985 30 5.00 50 ND 102 101 80 - 120
Selenium 0.22 1.71 30 5.00 50 ND 94.2 92.6 80 - 120
Silver 0.15 1.98 30 5.00 50 ND 102 100 80 - 120
Thallium 0.20 0.985 30 5.00 50 ND 102 101 80 - 120
Vanadium 0.10 0.976 30 5.00 50 ND 103 102 80 - 120
Zinc 0.30 1.21 30 5.00 50 ND 100 98.8 80 - 120
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/27/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
7471BP 1152309
SW7471B 6/28/2023 475977
mg/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
Mercury 0.047 1.44 20 0.50 1.25 ND 112 110 80 - 120
Total Page Count: 46 Page 39 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) LCS/LCSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment.

Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/28/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
3546_BNA 1152320
SW8270C 6/28/2023 476049
ug/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
Phenol 43.8 1.72 30 288 1200 ND 95.8 97.8 40 - 100
2-Chlorophenol 98.9 99.3 47.7 0.000 30 288 1200 ND 45 - 105 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 97.0 95.7 14.6 1.30 30 144 400 ND 35 - 105 N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine 122 123 13.2 1.22 30 144 400 ND 40 - 125 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 95.1 94.4 11.8 0.793 30 144 400 ND 45 - 110 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 105 104 33.8 0.797 30 288 1200 ND 45 - 110 Acenaphthene 10.7 1.98 30 144 400 ND 102 100 45 - 110
4-Nitrophenol 109 113 54.7 3.75 30 720 1200 ND 15 - 140 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 127 130 12.1 2.33 30 144 400 ND 50 - 135 N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) 112 111 12.0 1.49 30 144 1200 ND 25 - 120 Pyrene 12.0 6.22 30 144 400 ND 101 108 45 - 145
2-Fluorophenol (S) 87.9 89.2 11100 25 - 121
Phenol-d6 (S) 90.9 93.3 11100 24 - 113
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) 98.4 111 11100 19 - 122
2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) 92.2 97.2 5560 30 - 143
Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) 94.0 96.5 5560 23 - 120
p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) 108 110 5560 18 - 137
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/28/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
3546_OCP 1152325
SW8081B 6/28/2023 476015
ug/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 81.2 86.8 0.16 6.55 30 2.0 40 ND 25 - 135 Heptachlor 0.11 8.10 30 2.0 40 ND 79.9 86.8 40 - 130
Aldrin 0.20 6.90 30 2.0 40 ND 80.6 86.3 25 - 140
delta-BHC 0.15 6.21 30 2.0 40 ND 77.9 83.1 60 - 130
Heptachlor 0.19 6.34 30 2.0 40 ND 72.6 77.2 55 - 135
4,4'-DDT 0.13 6.83 30 2.0 40 ND 77.7 83.2 45 - 140
Tetrachloro-M-Xylene (S) 76.7 77.1 100 48 - 125
Decachlorobiphenyl (S) 82.3 82.8 100 38 - 135
Total Page Count: 46 Page 40 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) LCS/LCSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment.

Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/30/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
5035 1152442
SW8260B 6/30/2023 476092
mg/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
1,1-Dichloroethene 111 98.0 0.0020 12.4 30 0.010 0.0500 ND 53.7 - 139 Benzene 0.0022 11.9 30 0.010 0.0500 ND 112 99.5 66.5 - 135 Trichloroethene 109 103 0.0018 5.29 30 0.010 0.0500 ND 57.5 - 150 Toluene 0.0018 1.90 30 0.010 0.0500 ND 106 104 56.8 - 134 Chlorobenzene 104 99.9 0.0018 4.51 30 0.010 0.0500 ND 57.4 - 134 (S) Dibromofluoromethane 102 102 50.0 59.8 - 148
(S) Toluene-d8 103 99.6 50.0 55.2 - 133
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 96.1 50.0 55.8 - 141
Work Order:

Matrix:

Units:

Prep Method:

Analytical
Method:

Prep Date:

Analyzed Date:
06/30/23 Prep Batch:

Analytical
Batch:
5035GRO 1152443
SW8260B(TPH) 6/30/2023 476092
mg/Kg
2306263
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery

LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
TPH as Gasoline 81.9 85.3 0.043 4.07 30 0.10 1 ND 48.2 - 132 (S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 86.4 79.8 50 43.9 - 127
Total Page Count: 46 Page 41 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) MS/MSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment.

Work Order: 2306263
Analyzed Date:

Prep Date:

Matrix:

Prep Method: 06/28/23
Spiked Sample: 2306263-004A
Analytical
Method:

Prep Batch:

Units:

Analytical
Batch:
3546_BNA 1152320
Soil 476049
mg/Kg
SW8270C 6/29/2023
Parameters MDL PQL Sample
Conc.

Spike
Conc.

MS %
Recovery
MSD %
Recovery
MS/MSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
Phenol 0.0438 0.288 11.9 30 ND 1.20 40 - 100 80.7 91.2
2-Chlorophenol 62.8 82.7 0.0477 0.288 27.3 30 ND 1.20 45 - 105 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 83.4 86.9 0.0146 0.144 4.11 30 ND 0.400 35 - 105 N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine 103 105 0.0132 0.144 1.92 30 ND 0.400 40 - 115 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 82.4 87.8 0.0118 0.144 6.17 30 ND 0.400 45 - 110 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 72.8 87.3 0.0338 0.288 18.3 30 ND 1.20 45 - 110 Acenaphthene 0.0107 0.144 2.16 30 ND 0.400 45 - 110 91.6 93.8 4-Nitrophenol 0.0547 0.720 6.02 30 ND 1.20 15 - 140 114 108 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 102 107 0.0121 0.144 4.06 30 ND 0.400 50 - 115 Pentachlorophenol 100 97.1 0.00932 0.144 3.39 30 ND 1.20 25 - 120 Pyrene 0.0120 0.144 3.35 30 ND 0.400 45 - 145 106 103
2-Fluorophenol (S) 52.6 73.0 11.1 25 - 121
Phenol-d6 (S) 11.1 24 - 113 44.2 87.4
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (S) 52.9 76.3 11.1 19 - 122
2-Fluorobiphenyl (S) 87.9 92.0 5.56 30 - 143
Nitrobenzene-d5 (S) 84.3 89.5 5.56 23 - 120
p-Terphenyl-d14 (S) 107 105 5.56 18 - 137
Total Page Count: 46 Page 42 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Laboratory Qualifiers and Definitions
Method Detection Limit (MDL) - the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with a 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero
Matrix Spike (MS/MSD) - Client sample spiked with identical concentrations of target analyte (s). The spiking occurs prior to the sample preparation and analysis. They are used to document the precision and bias of a method in a given sample matrix.

Matrix - the component or substrate that contains the analyte of interest (e.g., - groundwater, sediment, soil, waste water, etc) Laboratory Control Sample (LCS ad LCSD) - A known matrix spiked with compounds representative of the target analyte(s). This is used to document laboratory performance.

Duplicate - a field sample and/or laboratory QC sample prepared in duplicate following all of the same processes and procedures used on the original sample (sample duplicate, LCSD, MSD)
Blank (Method/Preparation Blank) -MB/PB - An analyte-free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes/proportions as used in sample processing. The method blank is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process.

Practical Quantitation Limit/Reporting Limit/Limit of Quantitation (PQL/RL/LOQ) - a laboratory determined value at 2 to 5 times above the MDL that can be reproduced in a manner that results in a 99% confidence level that the result is both accurate and precise. PQLs/RLs/LODs reflect all preparation factors and/or dilution factors that have been applied to the sample during the preparation and/or analytical processes.

Precision (%RPD) - The agreement among a set of replicate/duplicate measurements without regard to known value of the replicates Surrogate (S) or (Surr) - An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical process, but which is not normally found in environmental samples. Surrogates are used in most organic analysis to demonstrate matrix compatibility with the chosen method of analysis
Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) - A compound not contained within the analytical calibration standards but present in the GCMS library of defined compounds. When the library is searched for an unknown compound, it can frequently give a tentative identification to the compound based on retention time and primary and secondary ion match. TICs are reported as estimates and are candidates for further investigation.

Units: the unit of measure used to express the reported result - mg/L and mg/Kg (equivalent to PPM - parts per million in liquid and solid), ug/L and ug/Kg (equivalent to PPB - parts per billion in liquid and solid), ug/m3, mg/m3, ppbv and ppmv (all units of measure for reporting concentrations in air), % ( equivalent to 10000 ppm or 1,000,000 ppb), ug/Wipe ( concentration found on the surface of a single Wipe usually taken over a 100cm2 surface) B - Indicates when the analyte is found in the associated method or preparation blank D - Surrogate is not recoverable due to the necessary dilution of the sample E - Indicates the reportable value is outside of the calibration range of the instrument but within the linear range of the instrument (unless otherwise noted) Values reported with an E qualifier should be considered as estimated.

H- Indicates that the recommended holding time for the analyte or compound has been exceeded J- Indicates a value between the method MDL and PQL and that the reported concentration should be considered as estimated rather the quantitative NA - Not Analyzed
N/A - Not Applicable
ND - Not Detected at a concentration greater than the PQL/RL or, if reported to the MDL, at greater than the MDL.

NR - Not recoverable - a matrix spike concentration is not recoverable due to a concentration within the original sample that is greater than four times the spike concentration added
R- The % RPD between a duplicate set of samples is outside of the absolute values established by laboratory control charts S- Spike recovery is outside of established method and/or laboratory control limits. Further explanation of the use of this qualifier should be included within a case narrative
X -Used to indicate that a value based on pattern identification is within the pattern range but not typical of the pattern found in standards.

Further explanation may or may not be provided within the sample footnote and/or the case narrative.

DEFINITIONS:

Accuracy/Bias (% Recovery) - The closeness of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value.

LABORATORY QUALIFIERS:

Total Page Count: 46 Page 43 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Sample Receipt Checklist
Client Name: Engeo Inc (SJ)
Project Name: 650 Cape Breston Dr
Work Order No.: 2306263
Date and Time Received: 6/27/2023 3:36:00PM
Received By: Lorna Imbat
Physically Logged By: Lorna Imbat
Carrier Name: Client Drop Off
Checklist Completed By: Lorna Imbat
Comments:

Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Shipping Container/Cooler In Good Condition?
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler?
Custody seals intact on sample bottles?
Chain of custody present?
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?
Samples in proper container/bottle?
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?
All samples received within holding time?
Container/Temp Blank temperature in compliance?
Water-VOA vials have zero headspace?
Water-pH acceptable upon receipt?
Temperature:

Yes
Not Present
Not Present
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Samples containers intact? Yes
°C
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
pH Checked by: N/A pH Adjusted by: N/A

3.0 Total Page Count: 46 Page 44 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Login Summary Report
Report Due Date:
6/27/2023
TL5224 Engeo Inc (SJ) II
650 Cape Breston Dr
20844.000.001
7/5/2023
TAT Requested:

Date Received:

Time Received:

QC Level:

Project Name:

Project # :

Comments:

Client ID:
5+ day:5
3:36 pm
Work Order # : 2306263
Requested Subbed
Tests
Test
On Hold
Sample
On Hold
Scheduled
Disposal
Collection Matrix
Date/Time
Client
Sample ID
WO Sample ID
2306263-001A Soil 12/24/23 1-S1 06/27/23 10:10
Composite
VOC_S_GRO mg/Kg
SVO_S_8270CFull
VOC_S_8260B
mg/Kg
Sample Note: Pls report in mg/kg
2306263-002A Soil 12/24/23 1-S2 06/27/23 11:55
Composite
VOC_S_GRO mg/Kg
SVO_S_8270CFull
VOC_S_8260B
mg/Kg
2306263-003A Soil 12/24/23 1-S3 06/27/23 12:00
Composite
VOC_S_GRO mg/Kg
SVO_S_8270CFull
VOC_S_8260B
mg/Kg
2306263-004A Soil 12/24/23 1-S4 06/27/23 12:05
Composite
VOC_S_GRO mg/Kg
VOC_S_8260B
mg/Kg
SVO_S_8270CFull
2306263-005A Soil 12/24/23 Composite 1-S1-S4 06/27/23
pH_S_9045D
Met_S_6010B CAM17
Hg_S_7471B
TPHDOSG_S_8015B
Pest_S_8081OCP
Sample Note: Pls report in mg/kg
Total Page Count: 46 Page 45 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton) Total Page Count: 46 Page 46 of 46

7.l
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment L - Environmental Sampling Summary (6155 : 650 Cape Breton)

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard Curran for Consulting Services for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution approving a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard and Curran for consulting services in the amount of $699,142 for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $769,057 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $69,915; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Daniel Patten, P.E., Engineering Manager (Wastewater)
(650) 922-7248
[email protected]
Melissa Tigbao, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On June 23, 2025, during the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the Council approved funding for the Forcemain Condition Assessment, Sequencing Batch Reactor Improvements Feasibility Study, and Pump Station & CCWRP Condition Assessment Update Projects. These projects were combined into a single agreement for greater economies of scale and for the goal of providing a holistic approach to the condition assessment and project planning process. This combined project was named the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. Condition assessments were previously completed for the Forcemain in 2014, and for the Pump Stations and Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant in 2018. Condition assessments need to be updated periodically as wastewater equipment continues to age through constant usage, and new equipment issues may be observed. Projects which were recommended as part of previous condition assessments are in progress or have been completed, including:
• The Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project – Completed. • The Ultraviolet Disinfection System Replacement Project – Nearing Completion. • The Headworks Rehabilitation and Repair Project – In Design. • Rockaway Pump Station Rehabilitation and Repair Project – Nearing Completion. • Sharp Park Pump Station Odor and Noise Improvements Project – In Design.

The wastewater industry is constantly evolving, with changing regulations, rising energy costs and climate change adaptation. New challenges are appearing on the horizon that may not have 8 Packet Pg. 658
Pacifica City Council 2
February 23, 2026
been as significant during previous condition assessment projects. This project will help ensure that the Wastewater Division meets these challenges proactively.

The major project deliverable will be a 20-year project “roadmap” to plan for Wastewater capital improvement projects at the five wastewater pump stations, two stormwater pump stations, wastewater forcemain and the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. Providing a 20-year plan for capital improvements will allow the Wastewater Division to plan projects well into the future and procure outside funding for larger projects when required.

The goals of this roadmap include:
• Strengthening wastewater infrastructure.
• Ensuring resilient operations.
• Advancing energy independence.
• Creating a sustainable plan for wastewater infrastructure needs.

On October 21, 2025, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to develop updated condition assessments and provide a 20-year project roadmap. Then on December 10, 2025, two consultants proposed on the Project: Woodard and Curran, and Ewers Engineering. The table below summarizes the fee for each consultant.

Proposer Fee
Woodard and Curran $699,142
Ewers Engineering $639,217
As required by California State Public Contract Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project. Staff reviewed the proposals based on the following criteria:
• Fees and Level of Effort
• Project Understanding and Approach
• Project and Team References
Woodard and Curran’s Proposal is 9% higher than the lowest fee, however, the selection process is not based on the lowest fee alone. Staff concluded that the Woodard & Curran team is the most qualified based on their extensive master plan project experience, their extensive understanding and knowledge of CCWRP, and their proposed methodology and project approach. Staff negotiated the scope and fee with Woodard and Curran further, reducing costs by approximately $75,000 from the original price received.

Moreover, Woodard and Curran provided a team experienced in wastewater infrastructure condition assessments and master planning. Their proposed team has recently worked on similar projects for Union Sanitary District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the City of Palo Alto. Team members have performed well on the 2021 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update and the UV Disinfection System Replacement Project. These projects included elements which will be critical to the success of the Project, including:
• Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plans
• Sewer System Master Plans
• Climate Adaptation Planning
Because of the above reasons, City staff ranked Woodard and Curran first and determined that 8 Packet Pg. 659
Pacifica City Council 3
February 23, 2026
they are the most qualified to perform the master planning for Wastewater Division needs.

The following table summarizes the schedule anticipated for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project:

Description Date
Council Approval of Engineering Agreement February 9, 2026 Notice to Proceed March 6, 2026
Condition Assessments Quarter 1 – Quarter 3 - 2026
Sequencing Batch Reactor Analysis Quarter 2 – Quarter 3 - 2026 Final Report and Project Roadmap Quarter 3 – End of 2026 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1; however, this will result in project delays and increase the risk to wastewater infrastructure if projects are not adequately planned for. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Annual Purchase Orders is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:

Stewardship of City Infrastructure, street, and facilities:

The Project will help better plan and prioritize wastewater infrastructure improvements and respond to the impacts of sea level rise over the next 20 years.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of Task Order No. 1 is $699,142. City staff recommends including a 10% contingency to the Task Order for any work due to the complexity of the project. The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.

An additional $113,507 is requested in this staff report, $110,452 from Fund 518 and $3,055 8 Packet Pg. 660
Pacifica City Council 4
February 23, 2026
from Fund 216.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Sign ed (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 661
Pacifica City Council 5
February 23, 2026
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING A MASTER AGREEMENT AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH WOODARD AND CURRAN FOR CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $699,142 FOR THE WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN PROJECT; APPROVE A BUDGET AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $769,057 WHICH INCLUDES 10% CONTINGENCY AND

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE

PROJECT
WHEREAS, during the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, City Council approved funding for the Forcemain Condition Assessment, Sequencing Batch Reactor Improvements Feasibility Study, and Pump Station & CCWRP Condition Assessment Update Projects; and
WHEREAS, these projects have been combined in the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project; past condition assessments were conducted on the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant, Pump Stations and Force Main; these condition assessments require updates to include current capital improvements and current Wastewater Division needs; and WHEREAS, providing a 20-year project “roadmap” will allow the Wastewater Division to look at the Pump Stations, Force Main and Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant holistically and better plan for future improvements; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2025, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from wastewater engineering consultants. Then on December 10, 2025, two consultants bid the Project; and
WHEREAS, as required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project; City staff ranked Woodard and Curran first and determined that they are the most qualified to perform engineering services on the Project; and WHEREAS, an additional $113,507 is required to complete the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project, with appropriations of $3,055 from Fund 216 and $110,452 from Fund 518; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to authorize a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard and Curran.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard and Curran for engineering services in the amount of $699,142 for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $769,057 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $69,915; and Authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Project. • • • • •
8 Packet Pg. 662
Pacifica City Council 6
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 8 Packet Pg. 663

8.a
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

8.a
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Agreement_02232026_Woodard_Curran_Wastewater_Facilities_Master_Plan_Consultant_Signed (6154 : Wastewater Facilities

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

Adoption of Resolution Ratifying Denial of Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision and Approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24, Subject To Conditions, For The Construction of an Approximately 3,180-Square Foot (Sf) Single-Family Residence With An Approximately 668-Sf Attached Three-Car Garage And Associated Improvements On An Approximately 26,055-Sf, Undeveloped Lot Located Approximately 330 Feet East-Northeast Of The Intersection Of Rockaway Beach Avenue And Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt Resolution Ratifying Denial of Appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s CEQA Determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

At the public hearing for the proposed project on February 9, 2026, the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit PSD838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24, subject to modifications to the conditions of approval in the draft Resolution, and to find the project exempt from CEQA. The City Council closed the public hearing and instructed the staff to bring the resolution back to the City Council for its final confirmation regarding the revisions made to the conditions of approval for the Project.

For discussion and details regarding the project, please refer to the February 9, 2026, City Council agenda packet here:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1626&Inline=True Based on council discussion the following modifications have been made to the conditions of approval (COA), in the attached Resolution, as shown below. Underlined text has been added and strikethrough indicates deleted text.

Modifications to Conditions:
• COA No. 9: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit an updated Project arborist report for review and approval by the City Arborist that, in addition to the tree protection plan included in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & 9 Packet Pg. 688
Pacifica City Council 2
February 23, 2026
Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis, includes the following:
a. A description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities; b. Plan for tree replacement at 2:1 ratio for the proposed tree removal, as described in Condition of Approval No. 7; and
c. Correct the error in the identification as a protected tree of Tree #12, labeled as Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis. d. Potential impact of the access roadway and other improvements on Tree #1 to be analyzed by a qualified Arborist. The amended report shall include specific protection measures, or, if preservation is not possible, recommend appropriate replacement species to be planted at a 2:1 ratio.
• CAO No. 20: Excess site drainage must be conducted under the sidewalk to the street.

Storm drainage should be designed for a 100-year event (a rate of rainfall anticipated to occur only once in 100 years, on average). The storm drainage system must be in compliance with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for San Mateo County, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
• COA No. 43: Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing, including but not limited to installing a planting strip on the southside driveway if approved by NCFA.

New Conditions added by City Council:
• COA No. 46: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall field-verify the location and functionality of the existing storm drain system indicated on civil plans. If the existing storm drain cannot be located or confirmed as functional, the applicant shall design and install a new storm drain line connecting to the public storm drain system on Rockaway Beach Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • COA No. 47: Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall provide a revised rendering of the refined driveway design that includes the windows on 125 Bayview Road to the property owners and residents along Bayview Road on both sides of the street and provide a receipt or some other evidence of certified mailing to property owners and residents along Bayview Road to the Planning Division as evidence of mailing made pursuant to this condition.

COA No. 48: No grubbing or tree removal shall take place prior to: (1) the issuance of a grading permit, or (2) prior to recordation of the improvement agreement required per Condition of Approval No. 45.

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 approve or request additional revisions to the Resolution.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
9 Packet Pg. 689
Pacifica City Council 3
February 23, 2026
None for the current action. However, at its February 9, 2026 hearing, the Council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision that the Project qualifies as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and no exceptions to the exemption apply.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Denial of Appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s CEQA determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may deny the amended conditions of approval to Resolution, and request for further revisions. Under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, a local agency may hold up to five public hearings once an application for a housing development project is deemed complete. The meeting on February 23, 2026, is the fourth public hearing since the application was deemed complete, therefore the Council may hold no more than one additional hearing.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Review of the proposed resolution 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 - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (PDF)
Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (PDF) Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (PDF) Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (PDF)
Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (PDF) Attachment F - Micheluccci Associates Geotechnical Report-24-07-10 (PDF) Attachment G - Amendment to Grant of Easement (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 690
Pacifica City Council 4
February 23, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA RATIFYING DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TP-4-24, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180- SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF

ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330

FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Robert Benda and John Spenker (“Owner”) have submitted an application to the City of Pacifica (City) for the construction of a 3,180 square foot (sf) single-family residence with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, an approximately 680-sf and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf, undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the R-1-H Zoning District requires approval of a Site Development Permit prior to issuance of a building permit per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-

4.953, with the objective of ensuring that new structures and streets are designed to protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillsides and to minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Tree Removal Permit per PMC Section 4-12.04, whereby any person who desires to remove a protected tree or City tree shall obtain a tree removal permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2024, which was continued to December 1, 2025.

WHEREAS, in continuing the public hearing for the Project, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant and the City staff to provide additional information on erosion control, drainage, additional renderings and details to the plans, preliminary title report, easement documents, and updated geotechnical reports.

WHEREAS, the Applicant provided the additional information and studies about the Project to City staff in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, after holding a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-017 approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Vera Toth-Fejel on behalf of “Coalition for a Safe Pacifica” 9 Packet Pg. 691
Pacifica City Council 5
February 23, 2026
(“Appellant”) on December 11, 2025, in opposition to the Planning Commission’s action (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented relating to the Appeal, and all testimony and documents into the record by reference and moved to approve the Resolution denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24, subject to conditions of approval as amended by Council.

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

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

2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and evidence presented during the hearing on appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on December 1, 2025, approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24, subject to conditions, for the construction of an approximately 3,180-square foot (sf) single-family residence with an approximately 668-sf attached threecar garage and associated imrovements, along with modified conditions of approval, and makes the following findings pertaining to its denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the Project:

Appeal Issue No. 1
“The difficulty of developing the lot is a result of choices of the landowner and their predecessors in interest.”
The appeal letter contends that because the original parcel was not created as a flag lot and had its primary frontage on a paper street (Calera Terrace), that limitations on development arise from a 1974 easement granted by prior owners to Lot 5, not from the physical condition of the land. As such, the appellant asserts that any hardship requiring a variance is self-created and that self-induced hardship does not justify exemption from land use regulations or granting variances.

Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not approve a Variance, nor does the project request or require approval of a variance or an exemption from any applicable land use regulations. The project would meet all applicable objective development standards in the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) that are required for new construction in the Single Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) Zoning District pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.953.

The project site is a flag lot with a 25-foot wide and 120-foot long “flagpole” from Bayview Street to the wider lot area, and has a legal right to access the site from Bayview. Based on the most recent 2023 easement documents, the adjacent property at 171 Bayview Road has revised a landscape easement across a portion of the flagpole area that would allow for the site access to be widened by 6’-0” northward (Attachment G).

See Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9), for discussion of the fire access.

This appeal point is not applicable because the applicant has not requested a variance.

Appeal Issue No. 2
9 Packet Pg. 692
Pacifica City Council 6
February 23, 2026
“Five findings for denial were met under the Site Development Permit.” The appeal letter claims that the project meets five of the nine site development permit findings that require denial of the project: PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9).

For detailed findings related to the Site Development Permit, refer to the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025
<https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>. a. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding PMC 9-4.3204(a)(3): “That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.”
The appeal letter claims that the paved driveway is not designed or located in a manner that sufficiently breaks up or softens the visual impact of the hardscape, and that the ADU is not screened from neighboring Lot 16.

Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway: Sufficient landscape areas have been reserved for the project. The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-

4.402(i).The vehicular access is treated as Fire Department access road (see Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9)). The proposed project would provide legal and conforming vehicular access to the housing development project. During review of the planning entitlements, the applicant considered multiple designs for the access, including a planted center strip on the paved driveway and the use of an open-faced block with grass infill (e.g., turf block or Grasscrete), but the designs were not feasible due to the fire access requirements. The applicant worked closely with the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) on access and site design and developed a driveway that meets the applicable fire requirements. The applicant prepared a revised rendering for the appeal that more accurately reflects the proposal and reduced visual impacts of the current design, shown below in Figure 1. To address the neighbors’ concern raised during the public hearing regarding the aesthetics of the driveway, the Planning Commission also added Condition of Approval 43 to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing,” noting that final design approval is outside the Commission’s and City’s purview.

Figure 1. Driveway Rendering
9 Packet Pg. 693
Pacifica City Council 7
February 23, 2026
(2.) Accessory Dwelling Unit (Figure 2): Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are required to be processed ministerially pursuant to State law and PMC Section 9-4.451(b), and are not subject to discretionary review, including the site development findings. However, the ADU complies with all applicable objective standards. For example, the minimum rear setback required for an ADU is 4 feet and 20 feet is proposed. The height of the ADU is lower than the existing residence on Lot 16. In addition to compliance of PMC Section 4-12.04(e) for replacement tree plantings, the applicant has provided additional shrubs, vines, and retaining wall plantings between the ADU and Lot 16 to reduce potential privacy and visual impacts.

Figure 2. ADU Height and Landscaping Plan
In conclusion, the design of the driveway is limited by the fire access requirements, and the project has been conditioned to explore additional measures to reduce potential impacts while ensuring life-safety access. Even if the ADU were subject to discretionary findings, which is prohibited by state and local law, the proposed design addresses the concerns raised by the appellant. Further, The project would provide 58 percent of lot area as landscape and vegetated undisturbed areas, where only 20 percent is required, and incorporates trees, shrubs, vines, and other plantings. There is sufficient landscape area reserved for the project. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning 9 Packet Pg. 694
Pacifica City Council 8
February 23, 2026
Commission’s decision.
b. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(4): “That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.”
The appeal letter claims that the proposed layout is inconsistent with the code definitions of front and side lot lines, and that the elevated, paved driveway and retaining wall along the property line with Lot 7 does not comply with required setbacks and its placement would require a variance. Finally, the letter contends that the project’s driveway and placement of the house and ADU would block sunlight and restrict airflow to Lot 7 and Lot 16. The appellant also notes that story poles have not been provided, limiting the ability of neighbors and the Commission to fully assess these impacts.

Staff Response: The front and side lot lines are correctly identified, and the fire access complies with the applicable requirements and is permitted within required setbacks. Further, although light and air impacts are not objective standards, the potential impacts have been minimized to the extent feasible.

The front lot line is the western lot abutting Bay View Road (bottom of the “flagpole”) and the western lot line abutting Lot 7 (bottom of the “flag”). The rear lot line is the eastern lot line, and all other lot lines are sides. The front and side setbacks are properly identified, and the buildings exceed the minimum setbacks, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Lot Lines and Required Setbacks
9 Packet Pg. 695
Pacifica City Council 9
February 23, 2026
1: Garages require a 20’ front setback; 34’-3” proposed 2: ADUs have a maximum 4’ rear setback; 20’-3” proposed Although a retaining wall meets the general definition of “structure” (anything constructed on the ground), there are specific provisions in the PMC that address fences, hedges, and walls and establish how they are regulated. PMC Section 9-4.2502 regulates fences, hedges, walls, and screen plantings located within the required setbacks. The applicable code does not impose setback requirements but regulates the height of retaining walls when located in a required setback, to between 3 to 6 feet, unless otherwise required by law. In this case, the retaining walls are required to provide fire access to the site and can exceed the height. Regardless, the fire access was designed with retaining walls that range from approximately 2 to 3 feet along the southern flagpole lot line, with one section of retaining wall at 5 feet in the southwest corner, located well over 30 feet from the house on Lot 7 (Attachment E, Sheet A-4.1 Grading Plan). The retaining walls in the northern portion of the flagpole are outside of the required setbacks. The design, including the slope, is required by law to meet fire access requirements, and the height of the retaining walls within the required setbacks substantially comply with the PMC Section 9-

4.2503. Further, there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways or driveways. 9 Packet Pg. 696
Pacifica City Council 10 February 23, 2026
Although light and air impacts are not an objective standard, the increased setbacks from property lines would minimize potential light and air impacts to surrounding properties more so than a project built to maximize the allowances for this district. The proposed residential use is consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing.

This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
c. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(6): “That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site.”
The appeal letter claims that the grading work will damage the natural grade of the site.

Staff Response: The project does not damage or destroy natural features and has been designed to meet standards for fire access while minimizing grading and preserving the natural slope to the greatest extent feasible, in coordination with NCFA. The development is set back on the hillside and incorporates a series of retaining walls supporting cuts from the north to south and containing fill for terraces to the south, facilitating construction of the residence and associated improvements. Landscaping beyond minimum requirements is proposed to integrate the buildings with the natural environment.

The overall site and building designs follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible and reduce excavation requirements. The project balances the need for fire access and site development with efforts to preserve natural features and the site’s existing grade, consistent with the PMC requirements and intent of the Design Standards. For additional analysis on this Finding, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>. The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) conclude that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint upon implementation of the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports, which are to be incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction, per Condition 17 of the project. The project does not damage or destroy natural features and thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
d. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(8): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.”
The appeal letter states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ’Citys adopted Design Guidelines <https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2394/637838931965700000>, including A.2 Building Location, B.2 Scale, B.6 Privacy, and C.6 Parking Areas.

Staff Response: The project responds appropriately to the City’s Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning regulations, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. They address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and still be consistent. While the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reduces the density of a “housing development project pursuant to the Housing 9 Packet Pg. 697
Pacifica City Council 11 February 23, 2026
Accountability Act. As the project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, the Council’s discretion regarding subjective standards from the Guidelines is governed by the Housing Accountability Act.

The project incorporates design features that reduce the perceived mass and integrate the project with surrounding homes while preserving views, privacy, and solar access to the greatest extent possible. The applicant has also worked extensively with NCFA to design the vehicular and fire access. For additional analysis on compliance with the Design Guidelines, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report
<https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>.

The project has responded to the Design Guidelines and complies with all applicable objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, setbacks, lot coverage, and offstreet parking, as well as ADU standards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
e. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.” The appeal letter raises three points under this criterion. First, that the proposed driveway does not comply with PMC Section 9-4.2813(i), which limits the width of driveways on lots with 50 feet or more of frontage to 50 percent of the frontage. Second, that the proposed driveway does not comply with a minimum 20-foot-wide driveway for emergency vehicle access required by the California Fire Code because the an18-foot wide driveway is proposed, and the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for a variance. Third, the appellant references the seismic and geologic hazards identified in the Safety Element of the General Plan and states that the project is inconsistent with the guiding policies related to landslides, liquefaction, erosion, and natural drainage.

Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway width: The vehicular access is consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2813(e)(1), which requires that when any portion of an exterior wall is located more than 150 feet from Fire Department vehicle access, the driveway must comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code. The vehicular access for the project is a Fire Department access roadway, subject to the standards of fire code. The project’s driveway complies with both the fire access requirements and with the residential driveways standards that allow driveways between 10 feet to 20 feet in width (see PMC Section 9-4.2813(e)).

Further, the code provision noted in the appeal would not apply to this site because the lot frontage is only 25 feet and does not exceed 50 feet. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met. (2.) Fire Access: The proposed fire access is 18 feet wide, whereas 20 feet is the standard pursuant to the Fire Code. The applicant worked with NCFA and the proposed design was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal as an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR). This allows for an 18-foot-wide driveway and fire apparatus turnaround based on site-specific conditions and compliance with applicable fire safety standards. As the NCFA has approved the access and on-site turnaround to meet the fire access requirements, staff relies on the Fire Marshal’s determination that the approved driveway configuration provides adequate emergency vehicle access for the project. See Condition of Approval No. 36 (Attachment A, Exhibit A). Variances are only applicable to the Zoning Ordinance and are not applied to other codes and regulations. NCFA has approved an AMMR for the width of the access and a turnaround, in compliance with the applicable regulations. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
(3.) Geologic Hazards: The applicant originally submitted a geotechnical report, prepared in 2011, 9 Packet Pg. 698
Pacifica City Council 12 February 23, 2026
concluding that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint (Attachment F). Following a request from the Planning Commission to further evaluate the previously prepared report, the applicant retained another firm in 2024 to review the initial geotechnical report and to conduct a new investigation, including borings and recommendations for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and drainage (Attachment G). Both geotechnical investigations concluded that the project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

In conclusion, the driveway / fire access complies with applicable requirements, and geotechnical investigations conclude that project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards, therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Issue No.3
“The Project was not in compliance with public notice requirements.” The appeal letter states that the public hearing notices for the December 1, 2025, Planning Commission hearing were mailed after the post marked date of November 20, 2025. It states that residents did not start receiving the notices until November 28, 2025, and contends that the City therefore did not comply with the required 10-day noticing period. The appellant further argues that the notices were received after the Thanksgiving holiday, when people may have been out of town, and that mailing notices immediately prior to the holiday failed to meet the spirit of the noticing requirement.

Staff Response: Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3203, the City must publish hearing notices in a newspaper of general circulation and mailing notices not less than 10 days prior to the hearing date to the owners and residents of property within a 500 foot-radius of the project site. It also states that “the failure of any person to receive such notice shall not invalidate the site development permit proceedings.” The City published notice in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 21, 2025, and mailed notices on November 20, 2025, as postmarked. While the appellant does not explicitly accuse the City of falsifying the postage meter or drop off date, the City disputes any implication, direct or indirect, that mailing dates were falsified, and maintains that the notices were handled accurately and in accordance with standard practice on November 20, 2025, which was 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City has no control over the processing, handling, or delivery of notices once they are provided to the USPS, nor is it reasonable to expect delivery that aligns with an individual’s travel plans.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Issue No. 4
“Violation of the Brown Act”
The appeal letter states that the Planning Commission violated the Brown Act by relying on supplemental materials distributed after agenda publication, specifically, the 2023 easement granted by the subject site to a neighboring lot. The appellant states that nearby residents were not able to adequately consider the materials, seek independent review, provide feedback, and prepare questions and comments for the December 1 meeting, and that the Commission cannot rush through a controversial, unusual, and unsafe development without at least providing nearby residents and interested parties with adequate notice and information.
9 Packet Pg. 699
Pacifica City Council 13 February 23, 2026
Staff Response: The Brown Act requires that an initial staff report or similar document containing an executive summary and the staff recommendation, if any, relating to that agenda item is made available for public inspection at the office or location posted at least 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting, and that agenda items be described with sufficient specificity to inform the public of the business to be conducted. The initial staff report and agenda was published online on November 26, 2025, at 2:29 PM, approximately 124 hours prior to the meeting. Further, the Brown Act does not prohibit the distribution of supplemental materials following agenda posting but requires that it be made available for public inspection at the time of distribution. At the meeting, printed copies of the easement were provided to the Commissioners, included in the publicly available agenda binder, and copies were available at the table with the extra agendas. In addition to the easement being made publicly available at the time of distribution to the Commission on December 1, 2025, it was also previously included as a publicly available supplemental exhibit attached to the Planning Commission staff report for the April 1, 2024, hearing <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1524&Inline=True>. As such, the Planning Commission complied with the Brown Act and no violation occurred.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Issue No 5
“Project not in Compliance with Setback Requirements.”
The appeal letter restates Appeal Point No. 2 regarding the setback requirements for retaining walls.

Staff Response: As noted under Appeal Point No. 2, Exclusion Criterion 9-4.3204(a)(4), there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways, driveways, or retaining walls.

Appeal Point No. 6
“Other Grounds for Appeal”
The appeal letter raises six sub-issues under this point. a. Failure to Consider or Pursue Alternatives. The Planning Commission failed to further investigate project design alternatives such as developing the paper street Calera Terrace.

Staff Response: The Planning Commission has purview over discretionary permits for “private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes.” Developing Calera Terrace to provide frontage for the project would constitute a substantially different project and was not part of the proposed project. Neither state law nor the City’s established development review standards require consideration of project alternatives for discretionary projects that are exempt from environmental review. An environmental impact report (EIR) must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)), but there is no such requirement to evaluate project alternatives where a project is exempt from CEQA review. Even if the Planning Commission were to have considered such an alternative, it would involve significant construction and grading beyond what is required for the proposed single-family residence, resulting in additional impacts, including disruption to neighboring properties and immediate area. The current proposal represents a less impactful development approach.

This appeal point is not applicable because consideration of a project alternative is not required.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Inconsistency with Plans and Rendering. There appear to be significant inconsistencies between the 9 Packet Pg. 700
Pacifica City Council 14 February 23, 2026
applicant’s architectural plans and renderings, such as with respect to height and placement of the proposed house. Without accurate rendering and story poles, neither nearby residents nor the Commission or its staff could accurately gauge, analyze, or provide feedback on what exactly applicant propose to build.

Staff Response: The City does not require story poles for any development projects, as reflected in the state-mandated application submittal checklist. As discussed above under Appeal Point No. 2(b) and shown in Figure 1, the applicant has provided a more accurate rendering of the driveway. The two other renderings showing the building from the southwest (Bay View Road) and northwest (Rockaway) appear accurate in both height and placement. Further, even if the renderings were inaccurate, the proposed project meets all applicable objective development standards, including height, and the placement of the proposed house would comply with setbacks, exceeding the requirements from all lot lines.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(c) Inconsistency with Size and Scale of the Home. The size of the project is substantially larger than the surrounding homes.

Staff Response: As previously discussed, the subject property is larger than surrounding lots - over 26,000 square feet where 5,000 square feet is the minimum lot area, allowing the proposed building to meet zoning standards while maintaining appropriate scale relative to the site. Based on compliance with these objective standards established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the lot size, the proposed building’s height, bulk and mass, and location are appropriate for the project site. This issue is adequately addressed by local and State law. Further, cursory calculations based on review of Google Earth images and Zillow, the lot coverage on neighboring properties averages approximately 22 percent. The proposed project would have a lot coverage of approximately 15 percent (excluding the ADU pursuant to PMC Section 9-

4.453(c)(5)), which is comparable to neighboring sites. Additionally, there are other properties zoned R1-H in the area that have been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for houses with similar floor area, including a project known as “Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way” for a 3,800 square foot singlefamily residence on a vacant lot.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(d.) Neighbor Access Required for Construction. The Planning Commission did not consider how the applicant plans to build without access to neighbor’s property.

Staff Response: The construction of the proposed project will not involve accessing or encroaching the adjacent neighbor’s lots, which will be verified through building permit review. This issue is adequately addressed by governing building codes during construction permit review and legally permitted construction activities.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(e.) Inadequate Analysis by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not analyze the increase in heavy construction vehicle traffic on Bayview Road and surrounding streets. This will result in degradation of road quality and the blocking of a one-lane road used for ingress, egress (including for safety and emergency vehicles) and evacuation of residents in the case of fire or earthquake.

Staff Response: The City has a standard requirements related to construction vehicles based on the amount of grading. This would be required to be implemented for this project and have been incorporated as Condition of Approval No. 35. These include a requirement for prior approval of any lane closures 9 Packet Pg. 701
Pacifica City Council 15 February 23, 2026
from Public Works, coordination with the Pacifica Police and Fire departments and Recology, and written notice to affected properties. The standard Traffic Control Plan requirements adequately address ingress, egress, and evacuation during construction. This issue was adequately addressed by Planning Commission, as well as in local regulations.

Further, the Planning Commission added Condition of Approval No. 42 which requires the applicant to submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing conditions of all public improvement for Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, to ensure restoration of any construction-related damage.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(f.) Additional Information on Security or Bond. The Planning Commission should have provided more information or a formula for calculating the security for nearby residents have adequate assurance that construction will be completed safely and any potential damage will be addressed.

Staff Response: The form and amount of any security or bond are determined by the City Engineer in accordance with standard practice, tailored to the scope and potential impacts of construction. The Planning Commission cannot specify these details, as it is not within their purview. In order to address community concerns, Condition of Approval 45 was added to ensure that construction of retaining walls and other related improvements would be completed should the project be abandoned mid-way, while providing appropriate oversight by the City Engineer. This appeal point was adequately addressed by Planning Commission.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Issue No. 7
“The project description is inadequate under California Environmental Quality Act.” The appeal letter claims that the project description for analyzing compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not stable or consistent because it had changed over time, including the addition of conditions of approval 41-45 introduced by the Planning Commission at their meeting on December 1, 2025. The appeal letter claims that as a result, input from the public and review by the Planning Commission was inadequate.

Staff Response: Under CEQA, a project description should contain a “general description” of the project’s “main features,” and other information sufficient to foster a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts.

While a project description must be stable and consistent throughout the document, a requirement for a consistent project description does not mean that the project cannot change as it proceeds through CEQA review and other stages in the approval process. The project description should allow for the flexibility needed to respond to unforeseeable events and changing conditions that could affect the project’s final design. A lead agency may also approve changes to a project without revising the project description if such changes do not result in increased environmental impacts.

Here, the project description’s “main features” have been stable throughout the development process, including at the time of staff review and analysis and at the time of Planning Commission review and action. At all times, the project has consisted of a single-family residence, an attached garage, and an ADU. Any project changes have been minor and have not impaired a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts. The project remains consistent with the project description, as discussed in further detail under Appeal Point No. 8, because it has not changed for 9 Packet Pg. 702
Pacifica City Council 16 February 23, 2026
purposes of CEQA or project review. The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission have not fundamentally changed the project and have not caused the project to be removed from the scope of CEQA exemption or result in any significant environmental impacts. No mitigation measures have been imposed, as further discussed under Appeal Point No. 8. The Planning Commission relied on the accurate project description for determining the CEQA categorical exemption.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Issue No. 8
“The project is not exempt from California Environmental Quality Act” The appeal letter claims three reasons that the project is not eligible for a categorical exemption from CEQA and that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact is required. a. Conditions of Approval: The appeal letter claims that the Planning Commission improperly relied on conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, as mitigation measures to support a categorical exemption. The appellant claims that the Conditions of Approval added by the Commission at the public hearing were actually mitigation measures, and the Planning Commission improperly relied on to apply CEQA Categorical Exemption to the project.

Staff Response: They conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission were not mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts. As explained in detail below, the majority of these conditions were added to allay public concerns and provide additional assurances to ensure that the Project complies with already applicable state and local regulations or the standards City conditions for a development Project. Regulations of general applicability that will prevent a significant impact from occurring (and conditions of approval requiring compliance with such regulations) are not treated as mitigation measures. Similarly, a feature built into the design or operation of a project is not treated as a mitigation measure that would preclude a categorical exemption.

The conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, do not constitute mitigation measures and are unrelated to the Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” Categorical Exemption from CEQA. The conditions of approval are intended to ensure compliance with regulations of general applicability, such as standard requirements in the PMC, state law, and other regulatory requirements. Discussed below are the challenged conditions and staff’s analysis confirming they are not mitigation measures.

Condition 41 states:
• Condition 41. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm. The detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows.

Staff Response: This condition was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. Rather, this condition was included in response to public concerns raised at the Commission hearing requiring an additional method for the project to demonstrate that the Project’s design for stormwater management is complying with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requirements (Chapter 12 of the PMC) and other regulatory requirements (e.g. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Under the NPDES permit requirements, the Project is already required to be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm, and a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate that effectiveness of the project’s 9 Packet Pg. 703
Pacifica City Council 17 February 23, 2026
design to meet this regulatory requirement is a standard engineering stormwater detention requirement applied for all single-family residential building permits Condition 42 states:
• Condition 42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a preconstruction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all public improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition requires documentation of existing site and public improvements to assign responsibility in the event of any project-related damage to public improvements. The project is not expected to damage public improvements. It is a condition to implement some of the PMC provisions that make the project applicant responsible for any damages or work done within public improvements, should they occur, and is not a mitigation measure.

Condition 43 states:
• Condition 43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition was imposed to address community concerns, and memorializes staff’s commitment to seek additional options to create a more visually appealing driveway while also meeting fire access requirements as determined by NCFA. The Commission noted that final design approval of the driveway was highly subjective and was “more aesthetically pleasing”. As the City’s subjective imposition of driveway design condition of approval was for aesthetic purposes and there is not evidence that there are aesthetic impacts under CEQA. As a result, the condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will result in aesthetic impacts; argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated lay opinion do not constitute substantial evidence. Because there is no evidence of aesthetic impacts under CEQA, this condition of approval is not intended to “reduce” any environmental impact. For all of these reasons, Condition 43 is not a mitigation measure. Condition 44 states:
• Condition 44. The Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices for dust control prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. While there were general concerns raised during the public hearing about construction dust, neither the appeal nor the public comments provide any substantial evidence in the record that the project construction will result in significant construction air quality impacts. Further, this condition merely reiterates the requirements that dust is controlled during construction in accordance with Bay Area Air District best management practices, which are standard conditions and regulations of general applicability. These standards would be required for any grading activities and reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to grading permit issuance. Therefore, 9 Packet Pg. 704
Pacifica City Council 18 February 23, 2026
Condition 44 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.

Condition 45 states:
• Condition 45. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition relates to a financial mechanism (improvement agreement for a security amount) to ensure that certain improvements which are already proposed as part of the project design are completed if the project is abandoned mid-way. The improvements themselves are project design features, not mitigation measures. Further, Condition 45 is intended to ensure that the project is constructed in compliance with applicable standards. . Accordingly, Condition 45 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.
b. Class 3 Categorical Exemption. “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” does not apply to the project because it is comprised of a large single-family residence, ADU, three-car garage, retaining walls, elevated driveway, and grading.

Staff Response: The Class 3 exemption applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303). Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to… “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (Ibid.) There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption.

The appellant selectively quotes the first example, omitting the provision allowing up to three singlefamily residences in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is defined, in part, as: (a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons; [or] (2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons (Pub. Resources Code § 21071). Per the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of the City of Pacifica is 38,640, and the populations of its contiguous neighboring cities of Daly City and South San Francisco are 104,901 and 66,105, respectively. The City of Pacifica is an urbanized area because it is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people.

Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. Here, the Project’s construction of one single-family residence, an ADU, and a garage is a lesser intensity of development than three single-family residences and thus cannot be expected to have greater environmental impacts than three single-family residences.

The Project clearly falls under the Class 3 exemption.

Furthermore, the second referenced example refers to accessory structures, in the plural. Here, the accessory dwelling unit and garage are accessory structures that can be built under the Class 3 exemption. c. Project size, steep topography, flag-lot location, and proximity to neighbors constitute “unusual circumstances” under CEQA.

Staff Response: Further, the exception for “unusual circumstances” does not apply. This exception applies where, due to “unusual circumstances,” there is a “reasonable possibility that the activity will have a 9 Packet Pg. 705
Pacifica City Council 19 February 23, 2026
significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)). A claim that this exception applies can be proven in only two ways: (1) by showing both that the project is unusual and that there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the project’s unusual circumstances; or (2) by showing that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
“[U]nusual circumstances are those that (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the particular categorical exemption and (ii) create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects.” “[W]hether a circumstance is ‘unusual’ is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.” Unusual circumstances are generally found on the basis of “some feature of the project that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class,” which can sometimes be on the basis of its size or location.

As discussed above in Staff Response (b), the project proposes a single-family residence, a garage, and an ADU, which is exactly the kind of development contemplated by the CEQA Class 3 exemption, as evidenced by the enumerated examples in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 language, so it cannot be distinguished from others in the exempt class. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.951, the R-1-H zone regulates development of “certain hillside areas” and “allow[s] residential development compatible with the slope limitations of the development site” and consistent with the Pacifica Design Guidelines.

The applicant provided two geotechnical investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the proposed project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, and drainage.

By contrast, the appellant and other public commenters have raised only generalized concerns and unsubstantiated opinions that Project creates geological risks, which do not present substantial evidence that unusual circumstances exist here, nor substantial evidence of any impacts due to unusual circumstances. These concerns raised by the Appellant are “normal and common considerations in the construction of a single-family residence”, and are not evidence of unusual circumstances. Further, the courts have generally rejected such size and location arguments presenting unusual circumstances in the case of single-family homes, as the appellant is raising here for this project. Thus, the appellants fail to provide substantial evidence that the project includes unusual circumstances or that the project will result in significant impacts to remove the project from the scope of the Class 3 CEQA exemption.

In conclusion, mitigation measures have not been included, the project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, and there is no evidence that the Project itself presents unusual circumstances. Thus, the analysis on the application of the unusual circumstances exception would need to end there under the applicable law. The City cannot require an Initial Study if the project is found to be categorically exempt and the exceptions to the exemption do not apply. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15063; see also Pub.

Resources Code § 21080(a), (c)). This appeal point was adequately addressed by the Planning Commission.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub.

Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to the Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small 9 Packet Pg. 706
Pacifica City Council 20 February 23, 2026
Structures) categorical exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15303). CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 applies to the Project as described below:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 states that Class 3 applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to . . . “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303.)
The City Council finds that the Project fits within the scope of the Class 3 exemption because it involves the construction of a single-family residence and accessory structures in a residential zoning district (R-1-H). There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption. The City Council finds that the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21071, because the City is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people. Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. This Project would only involve the construction of one singlefamily residence. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Additionally, the City Council finds that none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the Project, as described below:
• Location (§ 15300.2(a)): There is no evidence in the record that the Project will impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. The Project site is located within a substantially developed residential neighborhood and is not located in a sensitive environmental area. Therefore, the “location” exception is not applicable.
• Cumulative Impacts (§ 15300.2(b)): There is no evidence in the record that successive projects of the same type in the area would have a cumulatively significant environmental impact. The Project proposes residential development, in accordance with the General Plan, within a substantially developed residential neighborhood. Staff is aware of no evidence of impending development of other similar projects in the area that would have a significant impact on the environment, either alone or cumulatively with other projects in the vicinity.
• Unusual Circumstances (§ 15300.2(c)): There is no evidence in the record that the Project (1) involves unusual circumstances or (2) may have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Project does not differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the Class 3 categorical exemption and the Project does not create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. Because the City is an urbanized area, the Class 3 exemption would allow construction of three single-family residences; the Project consists of one single-family residence and associated accessory structures, and is therefore a lesser intensity of development than allowed under the Class 3 exemption. The Project site is zoned and designated for residential use, and the hillside development pattern is consistent with the surrounding development. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential 9 Packet Pg. 707
Pacifica City Council 21 February 23, 2026
Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage, etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. There is no evidence to indicate the site has any value to protected species. The applicant provided two geotechnical reports (Attachment F and Attachment G) of the staff report) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the Project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, or drainage. By contrast, the Appellant and other public commenters have raised just generalized concerns and unsubstantiated lay opinions that Project creates geological risks, which do not present substantial evidence that unusual circumstances exist here, nor substantial evidence of any impacts due to unusual circumstances. As such, there are no identifiable unusual circumstances and no evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. There is also no evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the “unusual circumstances” exception does not apply.
• Scenic Highways, Hazardous Waste Sites, Historical Resources (§ 15300.2(d)-(f)): The Project is not proposed near a designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the exceptions in subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because substantial evidence in the record shows that the Project is consistent with the requirements of a Class 3 exemption, and none of the exceptions to applying a categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, the City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby finds that none of the negative findings under PMC Section 9-4.3204(a) can be made with respect pertaining to Site Development Permit PSD-838-18, and hereby makes the following findings:

1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood; The Project would not substantially increase traffic since only one single-family residence and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) are proposed, and because the Project site is located in an area of established residences. The Project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence, which meets the PMC requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family residence and one guest parking space. The Project will provide adequate emergency vehicle access through provision of an on-site emergency vehicle turnaround. The proposed 18’-0” access driveway from Bay View Road does not meet the 20’-0” standard width required for emergency vehicle access pursuant to the California Fire Code (CFC). However, the design has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) given the project site’s limitations, including limited space from Bay View Road for access to the site and lack of any other feasible access route. The 18’-0” width of the access driveway is the widest access point that can be obtained in light of an existing landscaping easement on the applicant’s property. The proposed development will not affect or impede alternative transportation modes. On balance, the location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.

1. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or 9 Packet Pg. 708
Pacifica City Council 22 February 23, 2026
surrounding uses;
The Project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence. The parking spaces are accessible via the driveway from Bay View Road to the proposed residence. The proposed driveway is designed with approximately 12 feet of separation from the neighboring driveway to the north. The circulation and access aspects of the project, including ingress/egress between Bay View Road and the project site via the proposed driveway have undergone review and approval by the City's Engineering Division staff to ensure safe operations. Additionally, Bay View Road will be maintained and repaired as per the Engineering conditions of approval.

The three-car garage parking spaces meet the PMC requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family residence and one guest parking space, fulfilling the off-street parking requirements for the proposed development. The single-family residence proposed is not expected to significantly increase traffic on Bay View Road, which serves as the access route to the development. Moreover, 11 other single-family residences use Bay View Road for access with similar driveway configurations.

Therefore, the Project will not create any hazardous or inconvenient conditions for adjacent or surrounding uses with respect to the accessibility of off-street parking and the relationship of off-street parking area to traffic.

2. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas; The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-4.402(i). This extensive landscaping plan incorporates a variety of plantings such as shrubs, ground covers, grasses, and trees. Specifically, plantings along the driveway and near retaining walls are strategically placed to break up and soften the visual impact of these hardscape elements. The selection of small and large broadleaf trees aims to screen the proposed development from neighboring residential properties. A detailed landscape plan, including information on the full spread and height of the plantings, will be finalized during the building permit stage to ensure effective screening.

To address concerns from neighbors’ regarding the visual impacts of the driveway design, Condition of Approval 43 was added by the Planning Commission to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing”, noting that that final design approval for the driveway is outside the City’s purview.

As such, as conditioned, the project’s landscaping will provide adequate screening and relief from hardscaping and paved surfaces.

1. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof;
The project entails the development of an approximately 3,180-square foot (sf) single-family residence, along with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot.

The placement of the buildings on this relatively spacious site allows for setbacks from all property lines 9 Packet Pg. 709
Pacifica City Council 23 February 23, 2026
that exceed the minimum requirements for the single-family residence. The proposed development is located on significantly higher ground than the nearest residences along Rockaway Beach Avenue to the south. However, the proposed residence will set back a minimum of 15 feet-6 inches at its southeastern corner with its taller, two-story portions setback further behind. The setbacks from common property line of the proposed buildings will ensure that there are no light and air impacts to surrounding properties, including those that are not developed at present. Structures such as retaining walls, driveway, fence and hedges are not subject to setback requirements pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2502. The proposed singlefamily residence is a use consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing. This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value.

As such, the project is planned in a way that does not unreasonably restrict or obstruct light and air on the property or neighboring properties, nor does it hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood or diminish their value.

2. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area; The proposed development is a residential project and no improvements to any commercial or industrial structures are proposed. Therefore, this finding is inapplicable to the subject project.

3. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code; The project site is currently undeveloped and covered with vegetation, including thick brush, bushes, and scattered trees. Four of the trees are either within the project site or within 50 feet of the construction limits. Two of these trees, both Monterey Pines, are protected trees, per PMC Section 4-12.02(n). One of these protected trees is proposed for removal to facilitate the proposed development on the project site, in addition to a dead, 10-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Monterey Pine tree and another 8-inch DBH tree of the same species. Removal of the two healthy trees will require four new tree plantings of the same species at a replacement ratio of 2:1, per PMC Section 4-12.04(e).

The Project arborist report, titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis (Attachment F) of the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025 <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>), recommends a Tree Protection Plan for all trees, including trees on neighboring properties that are six or more DBH in size and located within the proposed project site and fifty (50’) feet of within project’s limits of disturbance, in accordance with PMC. The recommendations in this report have been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The Project arborist report will be updated with the description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities, in accordance with PMC Section 4-12.11(c)(3), prior to issuance of the building permit, as set forth in the conditions of approval of this project.

The other potentially significant natural feature is the natural grade present on the site. The steeply sloping topography of the Project site presents significant challenges to minimizing excavation. The Project proposes extensive retaining walls on the north and the southern side of the Project site with a retaining wall east of the ADU, as part of development on the Project site. However, the overall site and building design follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible. The Project’s site plan, largely driven by the site access requirements for fire safety, locates the Project’s driveway on the relatively less steep northern portion of the project site with the building footprint configured to accommodate the shape of the hammerhead required for fire truck access. The proposed buildings are located along the contours with access to the residence on the upper level on higher ground with the lower level below setback into the hillside. These features of the site and building design serve to reduce 9 Packet Pg. 710
Pacifica City Council 24 February 23, 2026
excavation and, thus minimize adverse impacts to the natural topography.

The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations conclude that the Project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports are incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction. Condition of Approval 30 has been included to ensure recommendations proposed in the geotechnical reports are incorporated within the final Project plans prior to the issuance of the building permit.

As such, as conditioned, the project will not excessively damage or destroy the natural features of the site.

4. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance;
As earlier indicated, the Spanish revival style of the residence blends several architectural elements such as varied roof profiles, balconies, and curves and arches for window and door openings. These elements along with the complementary colors and materials associated with the Spanish Revival style, such as red terracotta tiles for the roofs, brown wood-framed windows and roof shelves, and white stucco for the exterior walls ensure a visually interesting and harmonious design that avoids monotony.

The facades of the residence display complementary variety, exhibiting similarity in colors and materials while varying the size, shape, and treatment of windows. Large curved and arched windows and door elements on the northern and southern facades, coupled with square windows on the sides, introduce variety to the design.

Overall, the combination of diverse architectural treatments and articulations, along with the variety of plant materials used in landscaping, ensures that the external appearance of the proposed buildings exhibits sufficient variety and avoids any sense of monotony.

5. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines; or The proposed project has achieved consistency with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as follows:
• Site Planning
Screening: Exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, landing docks and ramps, electrical utility boxes, etc., should be screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with building and site design. Such facilities should be conveniently located, but must not interfere with the circulation and parking on the site.

As earlier mentioned, all service and storage areas would be located within the building interior and screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures, with no visual impact or interference with parking and circulation on the Project site. • Building Design
Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged.

Details. Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale. Wall insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the 9 Packet Pg. 711
Pacifica City Council 25 February 23, 2026
scale of larger buildings.

Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

Privacy. Consideration should be given to the impact of development on the privacy of surrounding properties. Use judicious window placement and appropriate landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of privacy.

Consistency: There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations.

The proposed project complies with the objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, bulk, mass, and lot coverage, and all of the buildings exceed the minimum setbacks. As mentioned earlier, the proposed residence is articulated in the Spanish Revival architectural style to include curves and arches above window and door openings on both the southern and northern facades.

The southern façade also includes lower and upper-level balconies with wood railings that extend to the western façade. The overall mass of the building is tempered with varied wall planes between the upper and lower levels that are visible from the south and offsets visible from the west and the north. The wall planes on the east are broken by the distance between the primary residence and the ADU that is located to the north of the residence.

The above-mentioned features and the varied roof profiles of both buildings serve to scale down the development consistent with the surrounding residences of smaller footprints and mass. This effect is more notable on the south side that faces the residential development downslope. The proposed materials, including terracotta tiles for the roofs, wood railings and frames for the balconies, and stucco for exterior walls, align with the Spanish Revival style of the buildings and bring seamless consistency among all facades of the buildings.

Therefore, on balance, the Project design is consistent with this design guideline. • Hillside Development
Excavation. Large amounts of cut and/or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. (a) Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it. (b) Whenever feasible, buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
(c) Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
(d) Avoid one-level solutions which would result in excessive lot coverage and more disruption of the site. Multi-level structures which step down the slope can help to minimize cut and fill.

As previously discussed, the steeply sloping topography of the project site presents significant challenges for minimizing excavation that has required extensive retaining walls on the northern and the southern 9 Packet Pg. 712
Pacifica City Council 26 February 23, 2026
side of the Project site as well as a retaining wall east of the accessary dwelling unit. However, the overall site and building design follows the northeast to southeast downward slope of the site with a step-down design to the south integrating the buildings with the surrounding terrain. The access driveway and emergency vehicle turnaround have also been designed to relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it, by placing them at the flatter portions of the upper site. Additionally, the placement of the proposed buildings is such that the longer facades are aligned with the direction of the existing contours. Therefore, on balance, the Project design is consistent with this design guideline.

2. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

The land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (LDR) per the 2040 General Plan.

The LDR land use designation allows for the development of three to nine dwelling units per gross acre.

The resulting density of the proposed Project is 3.3 units per acre, based on the proposal for two dwelling units (comprised of a primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit) on a 0.598-acre site. Therefore, the density of the proposed development is consistent with that of the LDR designation. Additionally, the proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the primary intended use in LDR designation of the General Plan.

The Project is also consistent with the development standards of the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) zoning district. Specifically, the height, setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking, and other applicable development standards of the R-1-H zoning district as further detailed in the staff report.

Further, the Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies that include, but are not limited to, the following:

Community Design Element:

Policy CD-I-11. Minimize Visual Impacts of Hillside Development. Require new development to employ innovative site planning, engineering and design techniques that:
• Seek first to avoid impacts to scenic resources through site planning and design; • Minimize grading and conform with natural landforms to the greatest extent possible; • Design structures so that they follow contours and limit their downslope exposure; and • Use landscaping to screen and integrate buildings with the natural environment.

Policy CD-I-14. Design Review. Continue to use Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed projects in Planned Development, Hillside Development, and Special districts.

Land Use Element
Policy LU-I-5. Density Ranges. Ensure that development is permitted within the allowable density range for the applicable land use designations.

Circulation Element
Policy CI-I-22. Improvements for Existing Facilities. Maintain and upgrade local streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other City infrastructure in a manner that prevents deterioration and corrects existing deficiencies.

Housing Element
HE-G-1. Maintain, Improve, and Develop Housing: Encourage the development and retention of housing in a variety of types for all income levels with priority given to low-income households and projects that foster sustainable urban development. 9 Packet Pg. 713
Pacifica City Council 27 February 23, 2026
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby makes the following findings pertaining to Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24:
(a) The condition of the tree, presence of disease, pest infestation, damage, public nuisance, risk, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and/or interference with utility services.

The protected tree to be removed, as identified above, is in close proximity to a retaining wall necessary to allow for the construction of the hammerhead portion of the Project driveway, which is necessary for the required fire truck access to the site. Given the proximity of the subject tree to proposed construction including structures, the removal of this tree is necessary. Removal of this tree is also justified, as it will not survive the impact to its root zone because of the grading and construction associated with the proposed site improvements as described above. (b) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.

The subject tree removal is necessary to facilitate the construction of the hammerhead portion of the Project’s driveway that is essential for fire truck access to the development. The Project’s driveway is located in the only feasible location on the project site, given the limitations of slope and site access from public street. In the absence of such access, the Project site cannot be developed, thus depriving the owner of economically viable use of the property.
(c) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it.

The Project includes geotechnical evaluation, as incorporated in Attachment F and Attachment G to the staff report, that evaluated slope stability. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the Project could be constructed safely, subject to the recommendations in the report, including those pertaining to removal of trees.
(d) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.

As noted above, removal of the subject protected tree would facilitate the fire access necessary for the development of the Project site, thereby promoting health, safety, and general welfare of the area, and by extension, the City as a whole. The planting of required replacement trees would be located in accordance with the final landscape plan that would be reviewed and approved by City staff, ensuring that such plantings contribute to the scenic beauty associated with trees on the project site. Removal of one protected tree in relation to the large size of the Project site would not result in adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, or historic value on the Project site or immediate surroundings.
(e) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support.

The Project site is 26,055 square feet in size, which is adequate to ensure that the two replacement trees required for mitigation of the removal of the subject protected tree can be installed and maintained on the project site healthfully.

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the criteria for approval of a tree removal permit to remove one protected tree have been met by the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council of the City of Pacifica approves Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this resolution, 9 Packet Pg. 714
Pacifica City Council 28 February 23, 2026
and finds the Project exempt from CEQA.
* * * * *
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of February 2026.

AYES, Councilmember:

NOES, Councilmember:

ABSENT, Councilmember:

ABSTAIN, Councilmember:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Exhibit A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TP-4-24 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180-SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 9 Packet Pg. 715
Pacifica City Council 29 February 23, 2026
ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550) City Council Meeting of February 9, 2026
Planning Division of the Community Development Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “Benda-Spenker Residence,” prepared December 3, 2018, last revised October 21, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 is valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Community Development Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Community Development Director may administratively grant a single, one-year extension provided, in the their sole discretion, if the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one-year extension.

3. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.

4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all applicable conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.

5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit plans that include an update to the project data table on the Cover Page, accurately depicting the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) development standards and correcting the error in the proposed lot coverage (lot area covered by the proposed structures) mentioned.

6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a detailed on-site exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Said plan shall indicate fixture design, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residences.

Buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to residences shall be required. Building lighting shall be architecturally integrated with the building style, materials and colors and shall be designed to minimize glare. Show fixture locations, where applicable, on all building elevations.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Community Development Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size at maturity, and location of plant materials, including the location of the four replacement Monterey Pine trees (or other acceptable species as approved by the City Arborist) in lieu of the two Monterey Pine trees removed (2:1 replacement ratio) for Project construction, as well as the irrigation system. The four replacement trees shall be planted south of the proposed residence and serve to screen the development from downhill residential properties along Rockaway Beach Avenue. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, 9 Packet Pg. 716
Pacifica City Council 30 February 23, 2026
promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced, when necessary, as determined by the Community Development Director.

8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a completed Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) checklist demonstrating compliance with the MWELO water efficiency standards for review and approval by the Community Development Director.

9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit an updated Project arborist report for review and approval by the City Arborist that, in addition to the tree protection plan included in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis, includes the following:
a. A description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities; b. Plan for tree replacement at 2:1 ratio for the proposed tree removal, as described in Condition of Approval No. 7; and
c. Correct the error in the identification as a protected tree of Tree #12, labeled as Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis. d. Potential impact of the access roadway and other improvements on Tree #1 to be analyzed by a qualified Arborist. The amended report shall include specific protection measures, or, if preservation is not possible, recommend appropriate replacement species to be planted at a 2:1 ratio.

10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , all transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berming, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a roof plan with spot elevations showing the location of all roof equipment including vents, stacks and skylights. All roof equipment shall be screened to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.

12. All permanent mechanical equipment, such as motors, compressors, pumps, and compactors, which is determined by the Building Official to be a source of structural vibration or structureborne noise, shall be shock mounted in inertia blocks or bases and/or vibration isolators in a manner approved by the Building Official.

13. During construction, Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

14. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.

15. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any 9 Packet Pg. 717
Pacifica City Council 31 February 23, 2026
mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

Building Division of the Community Development Department

16. The Project requires review and approval of a building permit by the Building Official. Applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a building permit prior to commencing any construction activity.

17. The Project shall comply with all recommendations from the geotechnical engineering investigations:
a. The applicant shall retain a California-licensed Geotechnical Engineer to provide all required geotechnical review, observation, and testing during grading, excavation, and foundation construction. A letter from the Geotechnical Engineer confirming review and approval of the project plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of any grading or building permit.
b. The contractor shall provide the Geotechnical Engineer and the City a minimum of 72 hours’ notice prior to any earthwork, subdrain installation, retaining walls, or drilled pier operations.
c. Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant shall submit certification by the Geotechnical Engineer of record confirming that all work has been completed in substantial conformance with the soils investigation/geotechnical report.

Engineering Division of the Public Works Department

18. Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction, and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans prior to issuance of a building permit.

19. The following requirements must be clearly noted on the construction plans for the Project:
a. Bay View Road shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, debris, and soil. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced. A properly signed no-parking zone may be established during normal working hours only. b. All recorded survey points, monuments, railroad spikes, pins, cross cuts on top of 9 Packet Pg. 718
Pacifica City Council 32 February 23, 2026
sidewalks and tags on top of culvert headwalls or end walls whether within private property or public right-of-way shall be protected and preserved. If survey point/s are altered, removed or destroyed, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the services of a licensed surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer to restore or replace the survey points and record the required map prior to occupancy of the first unit. c. Existing public improvements within the property frontage that are damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project. Any damage to improvements within city right-of-way or to any private property, whether adjacent to subject property or not, that is determined by the City Engineer to have resulted from construction activities related to this project, shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.

20. Excess site drainage must be conducted under the sidewalk to the street. Storm drainage should be designed for a 100-year event. The storm drainage system must be in compliance with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for San Mateo County, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

21. Prior to certificate of occupancy or final inspection, existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that is damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as deemed by the City Engineer, even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this Project.

22. New driveway approach ramp and new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be per City Standards. Where the sidewalk crosses the driveway approach it must be ADA-compliant, providing no more than 2% cross-slope for no less than 48" width.

23. Applicant shall grind the existing asphalt street pavement with a minimum of 2 inches to street centerline or to the extent of the longest utility trench if beyond the centerline along Bay View Road, and an overlay of Caltrans specification ½" Type 'A' hot mix asphalt concrete shall be placed. If, in the opinion of the City Engineer, damage to the pavement during construction is more extensive, a larger area may have to be ground & overlaid. All pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind.

24. All utilities shall be installed underground from the nearest joint pole or box.

25. New waterline for fire sprinkler system shall be per City Standards 300 and 301.

26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:
a. An accurate survey plan, showing:
i. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;
ii. property lines labeled with bearings and distances; 9 Packet Pg. 719
Pacifica City Council 33 February 23, 2026
iii. edge of public right-of-way; and
iv. any easements
b. A site plan, showing:
i. the whole width of right-of-way of adjacent streets, including existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, pavement overlay, undersidewalk drainage, driveway approaches, sidewalk, curb & gutter, ADAcompliant curb ramps, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any ground-mounted equipment, any existing or proposed street markings and signage; existing and requested traffic control devices, existing and proposed street lights; existing and proposed street monuments ii. the slopes of existing adjacent and any proposed streets; iii. plan, profile and cross sections of the proposed driveways; proposed driveway shall not exceed the maximum grade of 18%;
iv. measurements to adjacent driveways within 25' of the project limits; v. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10' of the property lines;
vi. any existing trees that might be affected by the project; vii. any creeks or seasonal drainage swales or ditches on the property or near enough to be affected by the project
c. Details for construction within the public right-of-way or public easements such as, but not limited to:
i. structural sections for pavements, sidewalks, driveways; ii. water, storm drainage and sanitary sewer pipes and structures; iii. gas, electric and communications facilities;
iv. retaining walls, fences, planters, steps or stairways, or any other fixed structures;
v. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.

27. Prior to the site being physically disturbed in any way that could affect storm water runoff, Applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control plan by the Building Official.

28. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to any work undertaken in the public rightof-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City Standards, Caltrans Standard Specifications, Pacifica Municipal Code, Administrative Policies, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee, and shall be completed prior issuance of the Certificate of 9 Packet Pg. 720
Pacifica City Council 34 February 23, 2026
Occupancy. Permit fees shall be determined per the current adopted fee schedule at the time of permit issuance.

29. Applicant shall provide an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreement for the Stormwater Treatment Measures, which shall specify that measures shall be inspected at an interval to be determined by the City Engineer. The draft agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The agreement shall include provisions that allow the City to perform maintenance if not performed by the owner, with such costs to be lien on the property if not promptly reimbursed by owner.

30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide documentation that the geotechnical engineer has confirmed that the bio-swales will not create stability issues with the grade slopes, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer.

31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise to conform Drainage Area Codes (A, B, C, D) to Worksheet D of C.3 checklist (1,2,3), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Coordinate area of Drainage Area B with area in Worksheet D.

32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise the drainage plan to identify Self Treating Areas on the plan and on the table.

33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide a detail for the catch basin with sump pump downslope of the house for review and approval by the City Engineer.

34. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall show how stormwater flows into each of the Bio Swales from pipes and driveway surface, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

35. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan (TCP), which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The TCP shall include the following and any other information as deemed necessary by the City Engineer upon review of the TCP:
a. Identification of the path of travel for delivery trucks to and from the project site. This travel-path shall be shown starting from and returning to the City’s designated truck route or the City limits and starting from and returning to the offload location at the project site.
b. Identification of a “turn-around” area for delivery trucks on site. All open-bed trucks shall be tarped.
c. Identification of all on- and off-site worker parking locations, including any carpool pickup and drop-off locations. d. Identification of an access lane of not less than 11 feet in width between parked vehicles and equipment at all times for emergency vehicle access. e. Staging and storing of equipment and materials in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless authorized with an encroachment permit. f. Lane closures shall only be permitted with prior approval from the Department of Public Works and requested from the Department not less than 72 hours in advance of schedule 9 Packet Pg. 721
Pacifica City Council 35 February 23, 2026
and coordinated with Pacifica Police and Fire Department and Recology. The contractor shall provide the affected properties with written notice not less than 10 days in advance of any road closure. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along Olympian Way.
g. The TCP shall include a note indicative of these requirements.

North County Fire Authority

36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall complete fee payment of an Alternate Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) application to North County Fire Authority (NCFA).

37. Fire sprinkler system is required. Applicant shall submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide fire flow information per the California Fire Code, Appendix B, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

39. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install illuminated address identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

40. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install utility identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Added at the December 1, 2025, Hearing And as Modified by the City Council at the February 9, 2026 Hearing

41. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm. The detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows.

42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all public improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.

43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing, including but not limited to installing a planting strip on the southside driveway if approved by NCFA.

44. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air District’s (formerly Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)) Best Management Practices for dust control for review by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall post a publicly 9 Packet Pg. 722
Pacifica City Council 36 February 23, 2026
visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

45. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

City Council Conditions of Approval Added at the February 9, 2026, Hearing

46. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall field-verify the location and functionality of the existing storm drain system indicated on civil plans. If the existing storm drain cannot be located or confirmed as functional, the applicant shall design and install a new storm drain line connecting to the public storm drain system on Rockaway Beach Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

47. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall provide a revised rendering of the refined driveway design that includes the windows on 125 Bayview Road to the property owners and residents along Bayview Road on both sides of the street and provide a receipt or some other evidence of certified mailing to property owners and residents along Bayview Road to the Planning Division as evidence of mailing made pursuant to this condition.

48. No grubbing or tree removal shall take place prior to: (1) issuance of a grading permit, or (2) recordation of the improvement agreement required per Condition of Approval No. 45. *** END OF CONDITIONS ***
9 Packet Pg. 723
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-017

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE PERMIT TP-4-24, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180- SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF

ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED SITE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550); AND FINDING

THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

Initiated by: Javier Chavarria (“Applicant”).

WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for the construction of a 3,180 square foot (sf) single-family residence with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, an approximately 680- sf and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf, currently undeveloped site located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) Zoning District requires approval of a Site Development Permit prior to issuance of a building permit per PMC Section 9-4.953 with the objective of ensuring that new structures and streets are designed to protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillsides and to minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Tree Permit per PMC Section 4-12.04, whereby any person who desires to remove a protected tree or City tree shall obtain a tree removal permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2024, and continued to a date uncertain.

WHEREAS, in continuing the public hearing for the Project, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica had directed the Project applicant and the City staff to provide additional information on erosion control, drainage, additional renderings and details to the plans, preliminary title report, easement documents, and updated geotechnical reports.

WHEREAS, the Project applicant provided the additional information and studies about the Project to City staff in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 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 Project qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project qualifies as a Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Section 15303 (New Construction Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines states in part:

Class 3 consists of construction of limited number of new, small facilities or structures:
* * * * *
(a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. * * * * *
The Project fits into the scope of the Class 3 exemption in that it involves the construction of a single-family residence in a zoning district (R-1-H) where the Pacifica Municipal Code authorizes singlefamily residential uses. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of an exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the Project, as described below:
• Sec. 15300.2(a): There is no evidence in the record that the Project will impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. The Project site is located within a substantially developed residential neighborhood and is not located in a sensitive environmental area.

Therefore, it would not have a significant impact on the environment. • Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that successive projects of the same type in the area would have a significant environmental impact. The Project proposes residential development, in accordance with the General Plan, within a substantially developed residential neighborhood and staff is aware of no evidence of impending development of other similar projects in the area that would have a significant impact on the environment either alone or cumulatively with other projects in the vicinity.
• Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence in the record of any possibility that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The Project site is zoned for residential use and the hillside development pattern is consistent with the surrounding development. There is no evidence to indicate the site has any value as critical habitat. To further document that this exception to the categorical exemption does not apply, the applicant provided an updated Geotechnical Report (Attachment E) dated July 10, 2024, confirming that there are no unusual circumstances related to geotechnical issues that would warrant application of this exception. As such,

9.a
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) there are no identifiable unusual circumstances that would have a significant effect on the environment. • Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near a designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and does not affect any historical buildings. The Project is not proposed near a scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because the Project is consistent with the requirements of a Class 3 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby does not make the following findings pertaining to Site Development Permit PSD-838-18:

1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood; The proposed project would not substantially increase traffic since only one new residential unit is proposed, in an area of established residences. The proposed development will provide adequate emergency vehicle access through provision of an on-site emergency vehicle turnaround. The proposed 18’-0” access driveway from Bay View Road does not meet the 20’-0” standard width required for emergency vehicle access pursuant to the California Fire Code (CFC). However, the design has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) given the project site’s limitations, including limited space from Bay View Road for access to the site and lack of any other feasible access route. The 18’-0” width of the access driveway is the widest access point that can be obtained in light of an existing landscaping easement on the applicant’s property. The proposed development will not affect or impede alternative transportation modes. On balance, the location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.

2. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses;
The project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence. The parking spaces are accessible via the driveway from Bay View Road to the proposed residence. The proposed driveway is designed with approximately 12 feet of separation from the neighboring driveway to the north. The circulation and access aspects of the project, including ingress/egress between Bay View Road and the project site via the proposed driveway have undergone review and approval by the City's Engineering Division staff to ensure safe operations. Additionally, Bay View Road will be maintained and repaired as per the Engineering conditions of approval.

9.a
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Therefore, the project will not create any hazardous or inconvenient conditions for adjacent or surrounding uses with respect to the accessibility of off-street parking and the relationship of off-street parking area to traffic.

3. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas; The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC. This extensive landscaping plan incorporates a variety of plantings such as shrubs, ground covers, grasses, and trees. Specifically, plantings along the driveway and near retaining walls are strategically placed to break up and soften the visual impact of these hardscape elements. The selection of small and large broadleaf trees aims to screen the proposed development from neighboring residential properties. A detailed landscape plan, including information on the full spread and height of the plantings, will be finalized during the building permit stage to ensure effective screening.

As such, as conditioned, the project’s landscaping will provide adequate screening and relief from hardscaping and paved surfaces.

4. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof;
The project entails the development of an approximately 3,180-square foot (sf) single-family residence, along with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf currently undeveloped site.

The placement of the buildings on this relatively spacious site allows for setbacks from all property lines that exceed the minimum requirements for the single-family residence. The proposed development is located on significantly higher ground than the nearest residences along Rockaway Beach Avenue to the south. However, the proposed residence will set back a minimum of 15’-6” at its southeastern corner with its taller, two-story portions setback further behind. The setbacks from common property line of the proposed buildings will ensure that there are no light and air impacts to surrounding properties including those that are not developed at present. The proposed single-family residence is a use consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing. This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value.

5. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area; The proposed development is a residential project and no improvements to any commercial or industrial structures are proposed. Therefore, this finding is inapplicable to the subject project.

9.a
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

6. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code; The project site is currently undeveloped and covered with vegetation, including thick brush, bushes, and scattered trees. As earlier indicated, four of the trees are either within the project site or within 50 feet of the construction limits. Two of these trees, both Monterey Pine, are protected trees, as per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 4-12.02(n). One of these protected trees is proposed for removal to facilitate the proposed development on the project site in addition to a dead, 10-inch DBH Monterey Pine tree and another 8-inch DBH tree of the same species. As mentioned earlier, removal of the two healthy trees will require four new tree plantings of the same species at a replacement ratio of 2:1, as per PMC Section 4-12.04(e).

The project arborist report, titled “Tree Assessment & Protection”, dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis (Attachment F of the staff report), recommends a Tree Protection Plan for all trees, including trees on neighboring properties that are six or more DBH in size and located within the proposed project site and fifty (50') feet of within project's limits of disturbance, in accordance with PMC. The recommendations in this report have been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The project arborist report will be updated with the description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities in accordance with PMC Section 4-12.11(c)(3) prior to issuance of the building permit as set forth in the conditions of approval of this project.

The other potentially significant natural feature is the natural grade present on the site. The steeply sloping topography of the project site presents significant challenges to minimizing excavation. The project proposes extensive retaining walls on the north and the southern side of the project site with a retaining wall east of the accessory dwelling unit, as part of development on the project site. However, the overall site and building design follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible. The project’s site plan, largely driven by the site access requirements for fire safety, locates the project’s driveway on the relatively less steep northern portion of the project site with the building footprint configured to accommodate the shape of the hammerhead required for fire truck access. The proposed buildings are located along the contours with access to the residence on the upper level on higher ground with the lower level below setback into the hillside. These features of the site and building design serve to reduce excavation and, thus minimize adverse impacts to the natural topography.

The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations conclude that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports are incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction.

As such, as conditioned, the project will not excessively damage or destroy the natural features of the site.

7. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance;
As earlier indicated, the Spanish revival style of the residence blends several architectural elements such as varied roof profiles, balconies, and curves and arches for window and door openings. These elements along with the complementary colors and materials associated with the Spanish Revival style, such as red terracotta tiles for the roofs, brown wood-framed windows and roof shelves, and white stucco for the exterior walls ensure a visually interesting and harmonious design that avoids monotony.

The facades of the residence display complementary variety, exhibiting similarity in colors and materials

9.a
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) while varying the size, shape, and treatment of windows. Large curved and arched windows and door elements on the northern and southern facades, coupled with square windows on the sides, introduce variety to the design.

8. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines; or The proposed project has achieved consistency with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as follows:
• Site Planning
Screening: Exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, landing docks and ramps, electrical utility boxes, etc., should be screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with building and site design. Such facilities should be conveniently located, but must not interfere with the circulation and parking on the site.

As earlier mentioned, all service and storage areas would be located within the building interior with no visual impact or interference with parking and circulation on the project site. • Building Design
Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged.

Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

Consistency: There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations.

As mentioned earlier, the proposed residence is articulated in the Spanish Revival architectural style to include curves and arches above window and door openings on both the southern and northern facades.

9.a
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) The above-mentioned features and the varied roof profiles of both buildings serve to scale down the development consistent with the surrounding residences of smaller footprints and mass. This effect is more notable on the south side that faces the residential development downslope. The proposed materials, including terracotta tiles for the roofs, wood railings and frames for the balconies, and stucco for exterior walls, align with the Spanish Revival style of the buildings and bring seamless consistency among all facades of the buildings.

The proposed site plan allows for relatively deep setbacks from all property lines and trees would be strategically planted in accordance with the final landscape plan to screen the proposed development that would minimize privacy impacts to surrounding residences. Additionally, the proposed design accounts for the neighbors’ expressed concern regarding privacy in not pursuing the alternative that placed the building closer to the project site’s southern boundary and lower on the hillside. • Hillside Development
Excavation. Large amounts of cut and/or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. (a) Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it. (b) Whenever feasible, buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
(c) Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
(d) Avoid one-level solutions which would result in excessive lot coverage and more disruption of the site. Multi-level structures which step down the slope can help to minimize cut and fill.

As previously discussed, the steeply sloping topography of the project site presents significant challenges for minimizing excavation that has required extensive retaining walls on the northern and the southern side of the project site as well as a retaining wall east of the accessary dwelling unit. However, the overall site and building design follows the northeast to southeast downward slope of the site with a step-down design to the south integrating the buildings with the surrounding terrain. The access driveway and emergency vehicle turnaround have also been designed to relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it, by placing them at the flatter portions of the upper site. Additionally, the placement of the proposed buildings is such that the longer facades are aligned with the direction of the existing contours. Therefore, on balance, the project design is consistent with this design guideline.

9. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

As indicated above, the land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (LDR) per the 2040 General Plan. The LDR land use designation allows for the development of three to nine dwelling units per gross acre. The resulting density of the proposed project is 3.3 units per acre, based on the proposal for two dwelling units (comprised of a primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit) on a

0.598-acre site. Therefore, the density of the proposed development is consistent with that of the LDR designation. Additionally, the proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the primary intended use in LDR designation of the General Plan.

The project is also consistent with the development standards of the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family

9.a
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Residential Hillside) zoning district. Specifically, the height, setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking, and other applicable development standards of the R-1-H zoning district as further detailed in the staff report.

Further, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies that include, but are not limited to, the following:

Community Design Element:

Policy CD-I-14. Design Review. Continue to use Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed projects in Planned Development, Hillside Development, and Special districts.

Land Use Element
Policy LU-I-5. Density Ranges. Ensure that development is permitted within the allowable density range for the applicable land use designations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby does not make the following findings pertaining to Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24:
(a) The condition of the tree, presence of disease, pest infestation, damage, public nuisance, risk, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and/or interference with utility services.

The removal of the protected tree, as identified above, is in close proximity to retaining wall necessary to allow for the construction of the hammerhead portion of the project driveway necessary for the required fire truck access to the site. Given the proximity of the subject tree to proposed construction including structures, the removal of this tree is necessary and justified as it will not survive the impact to its root zone because of the grading and construction associated with the proposed site improvements as described above.
(b) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.

The subject tree removal is necessary to facilitate the construction of the hammerhead portion of the project’s driveway that is essential for fire truck access to the development. The project’s driveway is located in the only feasible location on the project site, given the limitations of slope and site access from public street. In the absence of such access, the project site cannot be developed, thus depriving the owner of economically viable use of the property.
(c) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it.

The project includes geotechnical evaluation as incorporated in Attachment H to the staff report that evaluated slope stability Inc. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the project could be constructed safely, subject to the recommendations in the report, including those pertaining to removal of trees.

9.a
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) (d) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.

As noted above, removal of the subject protected tree would facilitate the fire truck necessary for the development of the site, thereby promoting health, safety, and general welfare of the area and by extension City as a whole. The planting of required replacement trees would be located in accordance with the final landscape plan that would be reviewed and approved by City staff ensuring that such plantings contribute to the scenic beauty associated with trees on the project site. Removal of one protected tree in relation to the large size of the project site would not result in adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, or historic value on the project site or immediate surroundings.
(e) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support.

The project site is 26,055 square feet in size that is adequate to ensure that the two replacement trees required for mitigation of the removal of the subject protected tree can be installed and maintained on the project site healthfully.

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the criteria for approval of a tree removal permit to remove one protected tree have been met by the proposed project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby finds the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303 and approves Site Development Permit PSD-838-18, and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24 subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this resolution. * * * * *

9.a
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 1st day of December, 2025.

AYES, Commissioner:

NOES, Commissioner:

ABSENT,
Commissioner:

ABSTAIN,
Commissioner:

Samantha Hauser, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

9.a
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE PERMIT TP-4-24 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180-SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED SITE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 1, 2025
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “Benda-Spenker Residence”, prepared December 3, 2018, last revised October 21, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. That the approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 is valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Planning Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Planning Director may administratively grant a single, one-year extension provided, in the Planning 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.

4. Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Planning Director’s satisfaction prior to issuance of a building permit.

6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a detailed on-site exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said plan shall indicate fixture design, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residences. Buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to residences shall be required. Building lighting shall be architecturally integrated with the building style, materials and colors and shall be designed to minimize glare. Show fixture locations, where applicable, on all building elevations.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size at maturity, and location of plant materials, including the location of the four replacement Monterey Pine trees (or other acceptable species as approved by the City Arborist) in lieu of the two Monterey Pine trees removed (2:1 replacement ratio) for Project construction, as well as the irrigation system. The four

9.a
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling
File No. 2018-058: Bayview Road-Calera Terrace (APN 022-062-550) December 1, 2025
Page | 2
replacement trees shall be planted south of the proposed residence and serve to screen the development from downhill residential properties along Rockaway Beach Avenue. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced, when necessary, as determined by the Planning Director.

9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit an updated Project arborist report for review and approval by the City Arborist that, in addition to the tree protection plan included in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection”, dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis, includes the following:
a. A description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities, b. Plan for tree replacement at 2:1 ratio for the proposed tree removal, as described in Condition of Approval No. 7, and
c. Correct the error in the identification as a protected tree of Tree # 12, labeled as Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection”, dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis.

10. All transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berming, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a roof plan with spot elevations showing the location of all roof equipment including vents, stacks and skylights. All roofequipment shall be screened to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

12. All permanent mechanical equipment, such as motors, compressors, pumps, and compactors, which is determined by the Building Official to be a source of structural vibration or structure- borne noise, shall be shock mounted in inertia blocks or bases and/or vibration isolators in a manner approved by the Building Official.

13. Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

14. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paidprior to the issuance of a building permit.

15. 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,

9.a
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling
File No. 2018-058: Bayview Road-Calera Terrace (APN 022-062-550) December 1, 2025
Page | 3
approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

Building Division of the Planning Department

Engineering Division of the Public Works Department

18. Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented, and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans.

9.a
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling
File No. 2018-058: Bayview Road-Calera Terrace (APN 022-062-550) December 1, 2025
Page | 4
c. Existing public improvements within the property frontage that are damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project. Any damage to improvements within city right-of-way or to any private property, whether adjacent to subject property or not, that is determined by the City Engineer to have resulted from construction activities related to this project, shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.

20. Excess site drainage must be conducted under the sidewalk to the street. Storm drainage should be designed for a 100-year event (a rate of rainfall anticipated to occur only once in 100 years, on average). The storm drainage system must be in compliance with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for San Mateo County, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

21. Existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that is damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as deemed by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this Project.

If, in the opinion of the City Engineer, damage to the pavement during construction is more extensive, a larger area may have to be ground & overlaid. All pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind.

24. All utilities shall be installed underground from the nearest joint pole or box.

25. New waterline for fire sprinkler system shall be per City Standards 300 and 301.

9.a
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling
File No. 2018-058: Bayview Road-Calera Terrace (APN 022-062-550) December 1, 2025
Page | 5
ii. the slopes of existing adjacent and any proposed streets; iii. plan, profile and cross sections of the proposed driveways; proposed driveway shall not exceed the maximum grade of 18%;
iv. measurements to adjacent driveways within 25' of the project limits; v. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10' of the property lines;
vi. any existing trees that might be affected by the project; vii. any creeks or seasonal drainage swales or ditches on the property or near enough to be affected by the project
c. Details for construction within the public right-of-way or public easements such as, but not limited to:
i. structural sections for pavements, sidewalks, driveways; ii. water, storm drainage and sanitary sewer pipes and structures; iii. gas, electric and communications facilities;
iv. retaining walls, fences, planters, steps or stairways, or any other fixed structures; v. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.

27. Prior to the site being physically disturbed in any way that could affect storm water runoff, Applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control plan by the Building Official.

28. Applicant shall obtain a City of Pacifica Encroachment Permit for all work undertaken in the public right-of-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City Standards, Caltrans Standard Specifications, Pacifica Municipal Code, Administrative Policies and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee and shall be completed prior issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

Permit fees shall be determined per the current adopted fee schedule at the time of permit issuance.

31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise to conform Drainage Area Codes (A, B, C, D) to Worksheet D of C.3 checklist (1,2,3), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Coordinate area of Drainage Area B with area in Worksheet D.

32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise the drainage plan to identify Self Treating Areas on the plan and on the table.

33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide a detail for the catch basin with sump pump downslope of the house for review and approval by the City Engineer.

9.a
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling
File No. 2018-058: Bayview Road-Calera Terrace (APN 022-062-550) December 1, 2025
Page | 6

35. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan (TCP) for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The TCP shall include the following and any other information as deemed necessary by the City Engineer upon review of the TCP:
a. Identification of the path of travel for delivery trucks to and from the project site. This travel-path shall be shown starting from and returning to the City’s designated truck route or the City limits and starting from and returning to the offload location at the project site. b. Identification of a “turn-around” area for delivery trucks on site. All open-bed trucks shall be tarped.
c. Identification of all on- and off-site worker parking locations, including any carpool pickup and drop-off locations. d. Identification of an access lane of not less than 11 feet in width between parked vehicles and equipment at all times for emergency vehicle access. e. Staging and storing of equipment and materials in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless authorized with an encroachment permit. f. Lane closures shall only be permitted with prior approval from the Department of Public Works and requested from the Department not less than 72 hours in advance of schedule and coordinated with Pacifica Police and Fire Department and Recology. The contractor shall provide the affected properties with written notice not less than 10 days in advance of any road closure. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along Olympian Way. g. The TCP shall include a note indicative of these requirements.

North County Fire Authority

36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall complete fee payment of AMMR application to NCFA.

37. Fire sprinkler system is required. Applicant shall submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide fire flow information per CFC, Appendix B, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

39. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install illuminated address identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

40. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install utility identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Added at the December 1, 2025 Hearing

9.a
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling
File No. 2018-058: Bayview Road-Calera Terrace (APN 022-062-550) December 1, 2025
Page | 7
driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.

43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.

44. The Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices for dust control prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

9.a
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.b
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Attachment B - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) INTRODUCTION:

Section I Introduction
Note: The applicant / developer is incorrectly identified on the Appeal Form.

The Applicants are Robert Benda and John Spenker.

APN 022-062-550 was purchased in April 2018. An architect, engineer, contractor with a long history of positive development and relationships in Pacifica was selected. The applicants began a slow and iterative development process.

From project inception to the present day, project design and subsequent iterations (feedback from Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and Community) have been developed in adherence to City's General Plan, Zoning Law, and other specific and area development plans subject to Planning Commission approval. The applicant has been asked to apply engineering and modifications to the project that go beyond planning guidelines and beyond the requirements for similar projects. The applicant has incorporated modifications knowing the positive outcome for both the project and the community. This includes but is not limited to:
● Installation of a full compliant turn around for emergency vehicles improving the safety of the community
● Enhanced water detention and drainage system
● Investigation of a mining claim
● Performance bond for construction of retaining walls
● Change to original design of building
● Assume responsibility for street damages all the way to the entry of Rockaway Beach ave where other heave vehicles may have access September 2020, the applicants door knocked all parcels with a shared property line with APN 022-062-550 as well as those parcels on the west side of Bayview Road - 19 parcels in total. Materials were provided in-person or left at doorsteps. There was at least one rental at that time, and the applicant connected with the parcel owner. The goal remains simple - establish transparency and cooperation. Copies of those materials are provided as part of this appeal response. Some highlights from the outreach are noted below:
● Partnership with Lot 4,5. The applicants learned that when Lots 7,8 was developed, illegal dumping of construction debris (confirmed and still located on the project site) and inadequate retaining wall structures resulted in soil movement and foundation damage to Lot 4,5. The owners of lot 4,5 obtained the existing easement from the prior owners of lot 6 in order to build retaining walls to preserve their foundation. The applicants partnered with Lot 4,5 to design a retaining wall solution that preserves their home and allows access to the project site.
1 9.c
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) ○ The project’s driveway solution provides mitigation for prior sub par construction practices.
○ The project’s water retention and reclamation provide a solution for run-off where there is none today.
● Partnership with Lot 67,68. Years of neglect and introduction of non-native plants (ivy) from Parcel B impacted a long standing native tree. Lot 67,68 owners connected to solve and remediate. The applicants paid for and removed the tree, debris, years of ivy overgrowth and also assisted with additional debris removal (Lot 67,68 old fence). Lot 67,68 provided access. The applicant and project provided a solution. Another example of collaboration and partnership.
● The outreach led to an introduction with Lot 7,8 (the appellant); where we met a few times to discuss the project and gain feedback.

The appellant chose to go silent; however the applicant remains neutral, open to collaboration in service to a project that serves the applicant and the community.

The applicant remains confident that Pacifica is an ideal location to build a home and raise a family. The Planning Commission and staff experts provide ongoing, iterative rounds of recommendations that inform project design and approach. Curiously, this might be the reason why the appellant notes there have been a lot of changes. They are right. Various modifications have been made and the appellant has had the opportunity to be directly involved over the past 7 years. The Planning Commission and staff are indeed the experts to provide oversight and approval of the project. As an applicant, we develop in alignment to established guidelines and Planning Commission feedback.

We iterate modifications and amendments for review and feedback.The City of Pacifica is the decision making body and the applicants and project are the receivers of decisions. We thank the City of Pacifica for the extensive time and commitment provided.

The applicants are committed to meeting all Pacifica laws and guidelines with respect to this project to ensure the safety of our community. If the City of Pacifica has identified additional areas where the project application has not met the city’s requirements since the project was approved, the applicant remains amenable to recommendation and modification; as has been the case from project inception to the present.

To that point, the applicant has spent 7 now going on 8 years partnering with the Planning Department and their staff experts to ensure that each and every requirement is met to make the least possible impact to our community.

To restate, the applicant has acquiesced to many of the city’s requests that were in excess of what is typically required for a single-family residence (fire truck turnaround, water collection system, etc.).

The applicant has retained a top notch design team for this project including an architect, an energy consultant, a civil engineer who will prepare the structural design when the time comes, and two geotechnical engineers. The 2 9.c
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) project plans and calculations have and will continue to be reviewed by the Pacifica Building Department, the City Engineers, the geotechnical engineer and a team of peer reviewers selected by the City. At such time as a contractor is selected for the construction of the project, the applicant will choose a well qualified and experienced contractor. Moreover, during construction, regular inspections will be conducted by the city to ensure compliance with the plans and a safe and secure project.

The appellant further implies that a variance is required for the project which is incorrect. The Planning Commission and the expert staff have confirmed the project meets all required setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, and all General plan and zoning regulations.

Section II The Difficulty Of Developing The Lot Is A Result Of Choices Of The Landowner And Their Predecessors In Interest.

Applicant Reply:

The original subdivision had access to the lot via Calera Terrace, which is a paper street that has not been developed. Lot 13 was essentially landlocked. To obtain access, lot 6 was purchased by previous owners and annexed to lot 13. An owner of land that abuts a street has an easement in that street for purposes of ingress and egress to and from their property to the next intersecting public roadway. Bachich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal. 2d 343, 352. Thus, the applicant has a legally recognized right to access their property via Bay View Road. While previous owners granted an easement to the neighbor, that situation has been remedied by modifying the easement, and a suitable driveway acceptable to the Fire Department has been designed which satisfies all applicable code and setback requirements.

RESPONSE TO APPEAL:

Section III Site Development Permit Exclusion Criteria Apply The project complies with the nine requirements to issue a permit. For the items raised by the appellant, the project also complies.

A. Exclusion Criterion 3
○ That insuf icient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas
○ Applicant Reply:

The landscape plan has been approved by the city. The site area is 26,055 sq. ft. out of which 15,155 remain as green natural or landscaped areas. The driveway access is sufficiently landscaped in a very similar manner to the lot immediately across the street a shown on the following picture
3 9.c
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) The visual impact depicted by the previously proposed rendering, is incorrect.

Our rendering consultant used a previous version of the design which resulted in the elevated driveway. Due to oversight, the rendering was not checked against the actual topographic map and grading plan and thus resulted in a very unsightly driveway. The correct design has now been rendered based on a true terrain model and the result is much less impacting as shown below.

Terrain modeled
4 9.c
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Rendered entrance
Prelimminary
Appellant further claims that the ADU is constructed overlooking the house on lot 16, which is incorrect. The ADU is actually lower than the adjacent house. The second-floor windows on the house on lot 16 are actually higher than the windows on the ADU. Furthermore, the closest corner of the ADU to the house on lot 16 is at least 30 feet away.

The tree adjacent to the neighbors property is a Monterey Pine identified in the arborist report as tree # 10 and it is deemed to be in Fair/poor condition.

Removing a tree that is in poor condition and replacing it with a better suitable species is the right thing to do. Furthermore, the neighbor is complaining that the 5 9.c
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) new building will deprive them of the western light. The tree would do just the same. Removing the tree enhances the light flow into their house.

B. Exclusion Criterion 4
○ That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof
○ Applicant Reply:

Appellant claims that insufficient setbacks are provided. Regardless of where the front is considered, the building meets the required set backs. ● Front set back to Bayview side property line is 34 ft ● Rear set back to lot 16 property line is 20 ft
● Side set back to Rockaway Beach Ave. side property line is 15’-6” ● Side set back to Calera Terrace is 38’
The driveway had incorrectly depicted a tall retaining wall adjacent to the neighboring house. The updated rendering based on the submitted grading plan shows the actual condition.

Existing condition
Incorrect depiction
6 9.c
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Correct driveway
Based on the above Driveway design clarification, the light to house on lot 7 is not impacted.

There is no retaining wall taller than 4 feet on the right side of the driveway adjacent to the neighbor’s property, in fact, there are no walls in front of the house itself. The previous rendering was erroneous as described elsewhere in the report.

Staff did what the code requires: Sec. 9-4.254. - Lot line, front. "Front lot line" shall mean, in the case of an interior lot, a line separating the lot from the street and, in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest lot frontage of the lot from the street.

The appellant also claims that the western light will be blocked by the new building. The peak of the new building’s roof is 3.5 feet lower than the house on lot 16. Furthermore, the separation between the proposed building and the house on lot 16 is 30 ft at the northern end and 45 feet at the southern end. Those separations allow for an uninterrupted daylight plane
7 9.c
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) As already discussed on several occasions, installing story poles would require substantial vegetation removal that without a proper drainage and erosion control system would be detrimental to the area.

C. Exclusion Criterion 6
○ That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site ○ Applicant Reply:

Hillside construction is typical of Pacifica. This project does not create any unnecessary grading. The fire truck turnaround, which benefits the entire area, is the primary reason for the grading.

Furthermore, the city did a very thorough job assessing the project with regards to the natural grade of the site. The original plan included a single level main floor to accommodate one of the future residents of the home who has Post-polio syndrome and has difficulty navigating stairs. In order to follow the natural grade of the hillside, the current design slopes the main floor down the hillside via a series of stairs. This was a concession made to ensure the requirements were met.

D. Exclusion Criterion 8
○ (8) That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines
○ A.2. "Building placement should take into account
potential impacts on adjacent property. Existing views, privacy... should be preserved wherever possible."
i. Applicant Reply:

The building is located with large setbacks to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. No views or daylight are impaired by the proposed structure.
○ B.2. "An important aspect of design compatibility is
scale... A development can be 'out of scale' with its
surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density... Residential projects, particularly single-family dwellings, which are much larger than neighboring
structures are therefore discouraged. The City's height limitation is a maximum only, and the maximum height
may often be inappropriate when considered in the
context of surrounding development and topography ...

As with height limitation, the City's lot coverage
limitation is a maximum only."
i. Applicant Reply:

The building's size is comparable to many homes in Pacifica and the Rockaway Beach area. There are other homes located similarly behind homes along Rockaway Beach Ave. The main house is only 3180 sq. ft which is smaller than homes in the vicinity. The ADU is not subject to 8 9.c
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) design review and should not count towards the area comparison. ADUs area increases are mandated by state law.

1. 125 Bayview Rd 3,300 sq. ft.

2. 741 Rockaway Beach Ave 3,650 sq. ft neighboring lot

3. 743 Rockaway Beach Ave 3000 sq. ft.

4. 647 Rockaway Beach Ave 3370 sq. ft

5. 907 Pilar Pl 3270 sq. ft.
○ B.6. "Consideration should be given to the impact of
development on the privacy of surrounding properties.

Use judicious window placement and appropriate
landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of
privacy."
i. Applicant Reply:

The design meets the guidelines as it steps down the hill, features large roof breaks, and provides ample articulation. Provides large setbacks and privacy for adjacent homes.
○ C.6. All parking areas should be landscaped with
fast-growing trees and/or shrubs in order to screen vehicles from view and minimize the visual impact of expansive
areas of asphalt."
i. Applicant Reply:

The landscape plan has been reviewed by the city. Landscaping is proposed along the driveway to plant climbing vines to cover the retaining wall. A strip of landscape is also proposed at the center of the driveway.

E. Exclusion Criterion 9
○ That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City."
i. The driveway violates Section 9-4.28 l 3(i)

1. Applicant Reply:

Section 9-4.2813(i) provides that single-family residential driveways on lots with more than fifty (50′) foot frontages may exceed the maximum driveway width requirement if the purpose of the driveway is to create more off-street parking or conform to the requirement of "swing" type parking, as permitted by applicable provisions of this Code, but in no event shall the driveway access exceed more than fifty (50%) percent of the total lot frontage or forty (40′) feet, whichever is less. This section does not require that all driveways serving single-family residential lots be limited to the lesser of 50% of the total lot frontage or 40 feet.

Similar homes are built in the same manner.
a. 154 Bayview Rd
b. 741 Rockaway Reach Ave
9 9.c
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) c. 743 Rockaway Reach Ave
d. 749 Rockaway Reach Ave
e. 891 and 893 Calera Terrace
ii. The driveway also violates Sec. 9-4.2813(e)(l)

1. Applicant Reply:

The driveway is identical to the property across the street. Flag lots have different regulations. Pacifica code 9-4.2813(e)(l) points to Cal Fire Code. According to Section 503.1.1 of the Cal Fire Code, the fire code official can increase the 150 foot requirement if any of the following are met: the building is equipped with automatic sprinklers or there are not more than 2 group R-3 or group U occupancies. The proposed project meets both of these requirements.
iii. The extensive construction on slopes/grades above 50% violates local land use codes, which incorporate the California Building Code

1. Applicant Reply:

The site slope does not exceed 50%. The correct slope is 49.23% using the most stringent formula required by the City. Other properties are built on the face of the same slope, in fact adjacent to the subject property
a. 741 Rockaway beach ave
b. 743 Rockaway beach ave
c. 749 rockaway beach ave
iv. The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan's Guiding Policy SA-G-1 for seismic and geologic hazards, which
requires the "minimiz[ation] of risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards." 25 1. Applicant Reply:

Two separate firms prepared soils reports and both deemed the site suitable.
v. The project is also inconsistent with multiple other of the General Plan's guiding policies, and implementing policies for seismic and geologic hazards:

1. SA-1-2: Prohibit development in areas of mostly landslides or very high liquefaction risks... or on slopes steeper than 35 percent, unless detailed site investigations ensure that risks can be reduced to acceptable levels and the structure will be protected for its design life. a. Applicant Reply:

A full and comprehensive geotechnical report has been
prepared.

2. SA-1-6: Prohibit mitigation measures for potential geotechnical hazards if those measures could adversely af ect surrounding property, including... adversely af ect public health, safety, and welfare. 10 9.c
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) a. Applicant Reply:

None of the geotechnical related work will impact the
public or surrounding properties

3. SA-1-7: Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by revegetation or other acceptable methods.
a. Applicant Reply:

A comprehensive erosion control plan is to be prepared, reviewed by the City and city consultants and by the
geotechnical engineer.

4. SA-1-9: Continue enforcing the existing... Hillside Preservation District regulations that restrict development in hazardous areas where access is impractical and areas prone to hillside... erosion, landslides … a. Applicant Reply:

This is not a hazardous area.

5. C0-1-15: Enable natural draining by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on a development site, where feasible.
a. Applicant Reply:

The project enhances the drainage conditions as it is
treated as a regulated project where drainage is
scrutinized more accurately.

Section IV Project Not Incompliance with Public Notice Requirements Applicant Reply: Notices are published by the City and to our understanding they were done as required.

Section V Project Not In Compliance With Setback Requirements Applicant Reply: Project complies with all setbacks. Driveways and flat works do not have any set back requirements. The retaining wall described is nonexistent. The previously submitted rendering did not depict the information provided in the grading plan.

Section VI Other Grounds For Appeal
A. Calera Terrace Access
a. Applicant Reply:
i. This item was covered in the hearing on April 1 2024 and between applicant and City Planning via design iterations.
ii. Developing Calera Terrace is a large project that involves many owners and would actually cause more environmental issues as a larger area adjacent to undisturbed land would be impacted.

B. Inconsistencies between architectural plans and renderings a. Applicant Reply:

Renderings have been updated to match the actual terrain and site conditions.

C. xLarge size
11 9.c
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) a. Applicant Reply:

There are many similar size homes in the area and it complies with the mega home ordinance that the city has implemented.

D. Building w/out neighbor access
a. Applicant Reply:

There is no need to access any of the neighboring properties to build on the site.

E. Construction traf ic/road degradation
a. Applicant Reply:

Many houses have been built in the area, this one will not create any different impact.

F. Security Bond
a. Applicant Reply:

This condition is to be determined by the City.

Section VII Project Description Inadequate under CEQA
A. Applicant Reply:

The project has always been the same. Build a single-family home and an ADU. Any alterations to the plans that have been submitted to the city on multiple occasions have been made at the request of the city. If the commission feels that the conditions identified in the December 1, 2025 meeting alter their approval decision, then the commission can indicate that.

Section VIII Project Is Not Exempt from CEQA
A. The commission cannot use an exemption because they are impermissibly doing so by relying on mitigation measures.

B. Class 3 Exemption Does Not Apply
C. The Unusual Circumstances Exemption to the Class 3 Exemption Applies a. Applicant Reply:

The Project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The project qualifies as a Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 and a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) categorical exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. A designation that a class of projects is exempt reflects a determination by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency that “the environmental changes typically associated with projects in that class are not significant effects within the meaning of CEQA.” Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal. 4 th 1086, 1104.

Section 15303 (New Construction Conversion of Small Structures) states in relevant part: Class 3 consists of construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures: (a) one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. And under subsection (e) accessory (appurtenant)structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming 12 9.c
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) pools, and fences. The proposed project fits into the scope of the Class 3 exemption in that it involves the construction of a single-family residence, for the purposes of CEQA, in an R-1-H zoning district where the Pacifica Municipal Code authorizes single-family residential uses. Moreover, as the Planning Commission previously determined, none of the exceptions to application contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to this project.

Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) provides that Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The proposed project fits within the scope of a Class 32 exemption in that: (a) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;(b) occurs within city limits on a site less than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality and (e) and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public service Notwithstanding the same, the appellant argues that the combination of site topography, geology, multiple building types (single-family home, garage, and ADU), and high levels of excavations, grading and engineering work bring this proposed development out of Class 3 exemption. The Coalition is mistaken.

If there is a reasonable possibility that an activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to “unusual circumstances” an agency may not find the activity to be categorically exempt from CEQA. 14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(c).

This exception applies only when both unusual circumstances and a significant impact as a result of those unusual circumstances are shown. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal. 4
th 1086, 1104. The California
13 9.c
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Supreme Court’s decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation also described a second alternative means to establish the unusual circumstances exception:
through convincing proof that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Id. at 1105.

Under the unusual circumstances exception, the inquiry relating to the project’s environmental impacts is not whether the project will have an adverse impact on some persons but whether it will adversely affect the environment of persons in general due to unusual circumstances. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4
th 1356, 1392.

Here, contrary to the assertions of the appellant, there has been no showing of unusual circumstances or of a significant effect on the environment. The proposed house is not unusual in size or location (it is located in a single-family residential development), and the excavations, grading and engineering work are not unusual nor do they pose a danger to adjacent properties. .

The Geotechnical Report dated July 10, 2024 by the applicant confirms there are no unusual circumstances related to geotechnical issues that would qualify as unusual circumstances or demonstrate that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. To the contrary the Geotechnical Report demonstrates that this project can be safely constructed and will not have any significant effect on the environment. And as such, this project is exempt from CEQA. See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4 th 943
(court of appeal after remand from Supreme Court decision found single family residence’s large size (6,478 square-foot house with an attached 3,394 square foot 10-car garage) and its location on a slope with approximately 50 percent grade in an earthquake-prone area near buildings with unique character did not trigger the unusual circumstance exception); Association for Protection etc.

Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4
th 720, 736 (drainage concerns were
adequately addressed by standard provisions of Ukiah’s building code and did not amount to unusual circumstances).

Nor does the fact that the Planning Commission imposed certain conditions upon its approval of the proposed project change this analysis. Features built into the design or operation of a project that will reduce or avoid an environmental impact that might otherwise occur are not treated as mitigation measures that would preclude a categorical exemption. See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4
th 943, 961 (court rejected argument that a
construction traffic management plan was an impermissible mitigation measure); Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal. App 4
th 1329, 1352 (developer’s
agreement to dedicate land for a turning lane that improved the project for the benefit of the community was not a mitigation measure). 14 9.c
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) In sum, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA .

Section IX Without Categorical Exemption, Initial Study Required.

Applicant Reply:

Staff has made a thorough analysis of the project conditions and determined that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Section X Requested Action
Applicant Reply:

Any additional action will be determined by the City Planning Commission in response to the appeal.

APPENDICES
● September 15 2020 Applicant Community Outreach
15 9.c
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 16 9.c
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 17 9.c
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 18 9.c
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 19 9.c
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 20 9.c
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 21 9.c
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 22 9.c
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 23 9.c
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 24 9.c
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 25 9.c
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 26 9.c
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 27 9.c
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 28 9.c
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 29 9.c
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 30 9.c
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 31 9.c
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 32 9.c
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 33 9.c
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Attachment C - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

CALCULATIONS

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS CRITERIA CALCULATIONS OBSERVATIONS
8 LOT AREA - 26,055.41 SQ.FT
9 AVERAGE SLOPE
S=0.00229 X INTERVAL X LENGTH OF

CONTOURS / LOT AREA
S=0.00229 X 2 X 5,393.38 FT / 0.5017 = 49.23% PER PMC 9-4.2256 10 MAX FLOOR AREA 2800+12(SQRT(LOT AREA -5000)) 2800 +12 (SQRT(26,055.41-5000)) = 4,541.26 SQ.FT PER PMC 9-4.3201

PROPOSED VS ALLOWED

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS ALLOWED OBSERVATIONS 11 MAX HEIGHT 35'-0" 35'-0"
12 MAX FLOOR AREA (MAIN
HOUSE + ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT
3860.270 SQ. FT. 4,541.26 SQ.FT
13 GARAGE AREA 668.82 SQ.FT. - 14 LOT COVERAGE 10,900.18 SQ.FT. (41.84%) - 15 LANDSCAPE 3,907.23 SQ.FT. (14.99%) - 16 UNDISTURBED AREA 11,247.99 SQ.FT. (43.17%) -

BUILDING CONDITIONS (MAIN HOUSE)

ITEM DESCRIPTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS OBSERVATIONS
1 MAIN FLOOR AREA 1608.380
2 LOWER FLOOR AREA 1572.13
3 TOTAL LIVING AREA 3180.51
4 GARAGE AREA 668.82 SQ. FT.
5 FOOTPRINT 3,849.330

BUILDING CONDITIONS (GUEST HOUSE)
6 ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
679.76 SQ. FT.
7 FOOTPRINT 679.76 SQ. FT.
· PROJECT INFORMATION
A-0
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS: BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

DATE ISSUED FOR
12/03/18 PLANING SET
05/23/19 PLANING SET
03/23/2021 PLANING SET
04/21/2021 PLANING SET
09/10/2021 PLANING SET
09/24/2021 PLANING SET
06/22/2022 PLANING SET
02/17/2023 PLANING SET
05/23/2023 PLANING SET
10/16/2023 PLANING SET
10/21/2024 PLANING SET
BAY VIEW RD. CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550

BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE

PROJECT INFORMATION

INDEX OF DRAWING

APPLICABLE CODES

AERIAL VIEW VICINITY MAP
OWNER'S ADDRESS:

OWNER:

OWNER
SITE
OCCUPANCY GROUP:

ZONNING:

BUILDING TYPE:

LOT AREA:
1160 MISSION ST UNIT 810

SAN FRANCISCO ,CA

ROBERTA BENDA AND JOHN

SPENKER
R-1-H
R3/U
VB
26,055.41 Sq.Ft. (0.60 AC)
· 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
· 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
· 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
· 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
· 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
· 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY STANDARDS
· 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE
· 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
· ALL OTHER LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS

APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT

SCOPE OF WORK
· CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY

HOME AND AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

BUILDING

GENEREAL PLAN DESIGNATION
PORTION OF THE LOT IS VERY LOW DENSITY ALLOWING 1/2 TO 5 ACRES PER UNIT PORTION OF THE LOT IS LOW DENSITY ALLOWING 3 TO 9 UNITS PER ACR (1.5 TO 4.5 FOR THIS SITE)
A-0 PROJECT INFORMATION
A-1 NOT USED
A-2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A-2.1 BOUNDARY SURVEY
A-3 SITE PLAN
A-4 ACCESS ROAD & FIRE TRUCK PLAN
A-4.1 GRADING PLAN
A-4.2 SECTIONS
A-4.3 PROFILE AND DETAILS
A-5 LANDSCAPE PLAN
A-5.1 DRAINAGE PLAN
A-5.2 DRAINAGE DETAILS
A-5.3 UTILITY PLAN
A-5.4 SITE AREA USE
A-5.5 FIRE HOSE PLAN
A-5.6 EROSION CONTROL
A-5.7 CONSTRUCTION BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
A-5.8 BIOSWALE CALCULATIONS
A-6 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
A-6.1 AREA CALCULATION

WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE
A-7 ELEVATIONS
A-8 ELEVATIONS
A-8.1 ELEVATIONS
A-8.2 ELEVATIONS ENLARGED VIEW
A-8.3 ELEVATIONS ENLARGED VIEW
A-9 SECTION A
A-10 SECTION B
A-11 SECTION C
A-12 SECTION D
A-13 GUEST HOUSE FLOOR PLAN

GUEST HOUSE ELEVATIONS

GUEST HOUSE AREA CALCULATION
A-13.1GUEST HOUSE SECTION E AND F
A-14 RENDER VIEWS

9.d
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 14 15
66 67
68 69
70 6
72 71
C
B
A
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
13 SANTA CRUZ

ROCKAWAY BEACH

BAY VIEW
CALERA TERRACE(40')
(FMLY. HEWITT AVE.)
CALERA TERRACE(40')
TERRACE(40')
ROAD(40')
(E)ACCESS EASEMENT(12')

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
(E)Wooden Ret. Wall
(E)Wooden Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
CONTOURS @ 2'(Original)
CONTOURS @ 10'
(E)RETAINING WALL
(E)POST POLE LIGHT

SITE/GRADING PLAN LEGEND

DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

SYMBOLS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)
(E)TRAFFIC SIGN
(E)POWER POLE
(E)CITY MONUMENT
(E)HYDRANT

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING WOODEN FENCE

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE
(E)OVERHEAD POWER LINE
000
(E)ANCHOR
LEGAL OWNER: Robert Benda & John H. Spenker
LOT ADDRESS: Bay View Rd. - Calera Terrace
Pacifica, CA 94044
LOTS: 6, 13, 14, 15,
TOTAL AREA: 26,055.41 Sq. Ft.

0.60 Ac.

APN: 022 - 062 - 550

THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY ALL DIMENSIONS AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE FROM RECORDS NOTE:

GRAPHIC SCALE 0 100
( In Feet )
50 40 30 20 15 10 5 0 25 50
1" = 16'-0"
AND SUPERFICIAL EVIDENCE.
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE

LOT INFORMATION
(Existing Conditions)
(E)WV
(E)WV
(E)CB
(E)FH
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)SDI
RIM=906.16
INV=904.50
(E)SDI
RIM=905.57
INV=904.41
(E)SDI
(E)WV
(E)PP
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

RIM=948.83
INV=941.50
(E)WM
(E)PPL
(E)PGE
Box
(E)WM

ABBREVIATIONS
(E)WM

EXISTING (E)

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSMH

STORM DRAIN INLET SDI

WATER VALVE WV

WATER METER WM

CATCH BASIN CB

FIRE HYDRANT FH

POWER POLE PP

POWER POLE LIGHT PPL

TRAFFIC SIGN TS
ORIGINAL LOT NUMBER 00
(E)TELEPHONE LINE
(E)TS
(E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
(E) Ø=6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
#171
#125
(E)Wooden Fence (E)SDI
RIM=906.35
INV=904.60

IN THE CITY OF PACIFICA,

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1" = 16'-0"
AVENUE(40')
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(13'WIDE)
(E)PLANTING
EASEMENT Per
Doc#61643AH
Vol.6653, Page 82
PER Doc#61640AH
PER Doc#61640AH
Vol. 6653, Page 78

ROBERT BENDA AND

JOHN SPENKER
DOC. 2018-029095
APN 022-062-550
(E)Wooden Fence
(E)Wooden Fence

CALCULATED (C)

FOUND CROSS CUT ON TOP OF

CONCRETE CURB
BAY VIEW ROAD(40')
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
(E) WATER
LINE
(E) SEWER LINE S S S S S S
(E) WATER LINE W W W W W
(E) GAS LINE G G G

PROPOSED

DRIVEWAY CUT
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) DRIVEWAY
APN: 022-062-540
APN: 022-062-580
(E) CONC. WALKWAY
12"
TREE
10"
TREE
5 BUSH
3 BUSH
6"
TREE
6"
TREE
6"
TREE
10"
TREE
8"
TREE
12"
TREE
6"
TREE
10"
TREE
18"
TREE
8"
TREE
20"
TREE
18"
TREE
6"
TREE
8"
TREE

90.44' FROM

DRIVEWAY

TO HYRANT
(E)HOUSE
16 (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
A-2
· TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS: BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 73 54
71 72
12 70 69 68
3 67 66 65 64 63 62 61
60 59 58 57
56 55
11 10
9 8
46 7
1 2
5 4
6 14 15 16
17 18 19
53 52
51 50
49 48
47 45
44 20
22 30
21 32
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 31
33 WOODEN RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL

CALERA TERRACE
CALERA TERRACE KEY-STONE RET. WALL

PORTION
OF
6 MAPS 53
BLOCK 21

SANTA CRUZ TERRACE

BAY VIEW ROAD
26 PORTION
OF
6 MAPS 53
BLOCK 18
27 28
25 24
23 22
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21

PORTION
OF
6 MAPS 53
BLOCK 17

ROBERT BENDA AND
JOHN H. SPENKER
DOC. 2018-029095
APN 022-062-550

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE
(FMLY. HEWITT AVE.)
1" = 30'-0"

PARCEL A

PARCEL B

PARCEL C
13 GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND BASIS OF BEARINGS:

A-2.1
· BOUNDARY SURVEY
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS: BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 14 15
18 19
20 63
64 65
66 67 68
69 72 70
71 C
B
A
1 2
3 4
5 7
8 13

SANTA CRUZ

BAY VIE
CALERA TERRACE(40')
9 8
7 CALERA TERRACE(40')
TERRACE(40')
ROAD(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
1" = 16'-0"
(E)Chain Link Fence

18.00' DRIVEWAY
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)WV
(E)WV
(E)CB
(E)FH
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
dewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)TS
RIM=905.57
INV=904.41
M=905.81
V=896.56
(E)PP
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

RIM=948.83
INV=941.50
(E)PGE
Box
(E)WM
(E)WM
(E)TS
(E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
(E) Ø=6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
#171
#125
(E)Wooden Fence
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
(E)PLANTING
EASEMENT Per
Doc#61643AH
Vol.6653, Page 82
(E)Wooden Fence
FOUND 1" IP WITH TAG
STAMPED L.S. 3451' FROM

RECORD POSITION
(E)Wooden Fence
BAY VIEW ROAD(40')
(N) DRIVEWAY (18' WIDE)
25'-1"

SETBACK
38'-8"

SETBACK
20'-3"

SETBACK
40'-7"

SETBACK
34'-3"

SETBACK
74'-5"

SETBACK
29'-11"

SETBACK
33'-11"

SETBACK
15'-6"

SETBACK
26'-4"

SETBACK

SETBACK
50'
34'-8"

SETBACK
BAY VIEW ROAD (40')

7.00'

4.75 5.72
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) DRIVEWAY
20'-0" SETBACK ENVELOP

SETBACK ENVELOP
20'-0"
10'-0" SETBACK

ENVELOP
20'-0" SETBACK ENVELOP
20'-0" SETBACK ENVELOP
10'-0" SETBACK

ENVELOP

SETBACK ENVELOP
20'-0"
(E) CONC. WALKWAY (E) KEYSTONE RET.WALL

14.53'

8.58'
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES R52'
R28'
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
12" TREE
10" TREE
BUSH
5 3 BUSH
CANOPY 18'
CANOPY
16'
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8" CANOPY
10'TREE
12" TREE
CANOPY
20'
6" TREE
CANOPY
8'
10" TREE
CANOPY
8'
18" TREE
25' CANOPY
8" TREE
CANOPY
16'
20" TREE
30' CANOPY
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE 6"
8" TREE CANOPY
9'
CANOPY 8'
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO

BE REMOVED
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK
16 KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
17 (E) WINDOW & DOOR

LOCATION
(E) WINDOW

LOCATION
(E) WINDOW LOCATION
CONTOURS @ 2'(Original)
CONTOURS @ 10'
(E)RETAINING WALL
(E)POST POLE LIGHT

SITE/GRADING PLAN LEGEND

DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

SYMBOLS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)
(E)TRAFFIC SIGN
(E)POWER POLE
(E)CITY MONUMENT
(E)HYDRANT

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING WOODEN FENCE

0.60 Ac.

APN: 022 - 062 - 550

LOT INFORMATION

ABBREVIATIONS

EXISTING (E)

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSMH

STORM DRAIN INLET SDI

WATER VALVE WV

WATER METER WM

CATCH BASIN CB

FIRE HYDRANT FH

POWER POLE PP

POWER POLE LIGHT PPL

TRAFFIC SIGN TS
ORIGINAL LOT NUMBER 00
(E)TELEPHONE LINE

CALCULATED (C)

FOUND CROSS CUT ON TOP OF

CONCRETE CURB

EASEMENT IS SHOWN ON TOPOGRAPHIC

SURVEY AND BOUNDARY SURVEY

NO CHANGE TO EXISTING TRAFFIC

SIGNS OR PAVING MARKERS

TREE TO BE REMOVED
project no sheet no.

Drawn by:

Checked by: JC
225 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE. No 400
FAX (650) 355 8965
(650) 355 0615

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
PACIFICA, CA 94044
REMARKS:

ENGINEERING
J C
290614 A-3

SITE PLAN
NORTH
SCALE: 1"= 16'-0"
· SITE PLAN BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26
JAVIER M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

C I V I L STATE OF CAL I FORNIA
Sheet:

9.d
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 578 (E)Chain Link Fence (E)HOUSE (E) Curb
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence (E)HOUSE (E)WM (E)PPL (E)PGE Box (E)WM (E)WM (E)TS (E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe
S. Sewer System Vol.6653, Page 82

4.75 5.72
(N) DRIVEWAY
(18' WIDE)
BAY VIEW ROAD (40')(N) WATER METER (N) 18'-0" CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES 120.00' 70.00' (E) DRIVEWAY (E) DRIVEWAY #171 #125 APN: 022-062-540 APN: 022-062-580 (E) CONC. WALKWAY SPRINKLER (E) KEYSTONE RET.WALL R28' R52' (N) CONC. SWALE (N) CONC. SWALE 12" TREE 5 BUSH 3 BUSH 18' CANOPY 6" TREE6" TREE 6" TREE 8' CANOPY 12' CANOPY 12' CANOPY 8" TREE 10' CANOPY 12" TREE 20' CANOPY 6" TREE 8' CANOPY 10" TREE 16' CANOPY 10" TREE 8' CANOPY 18" TREE 25' CANOPY 8" TREE 16' CANOPY (E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)SPRINKLER Top of Bank PLANTER PLANTER DECK 16 KEY-STONE RET. WALL KEY-STONE RET. WALL KEY-STONE RET. WALL ACCESS ROAD (MAIN PROFILE) 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 2.00% 7.77% 10.16% 12.00% 15.00% 15.00% 12.00% (E) STREET 12.54' (E) SW 4.43' NEW ACCESS ROAD 133.58' ON EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING GROUND STATION 2+10.49 ELEV: 989.85 TURN AROUND (SECONDARY ACCESS) FINISH GROUND NEW RETAINING WALL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STANDARD FIRE TRUCK TURN AROUND 120.00' SCALE= 1:10

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE TURN AROUND (SECONDARY PROFILE STA: 2+10.49) 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 70.00' FIRE TRUCK TURN AROUND EXISTING GROUNDFINISH GROUND STATION 0+18.31 ELEV: 989.85 TW:1000.60 BW:990.35 TW:989.67 BW:974.00 -2% FILL AREA 1000 TW:1007.9 BW:1000.0 -2% SCALE= 1:10 A-4 J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS: Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525

BENDA-SPENKER

RESIDENCE

9.d
Packet Pg. 801
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) LEGAL OWNER: Robert Benda & John H. Spenker LOT ADDRESS: Bay View Rd. - Calera Terrace Pacifica, CA 94044 LOTS: 6, 13, 14, 15 TOTAL AREA: 26,055.41 Sq. Ft. 0.60 Ac. APN: 022 - 062 - 550 LOT INFORMATION 4"Ø P.P. TW=1003.0 BW=995.30 TW=1000.0 BW=992.0 TW=1000.0 BW=990.0 TW=997.2 BW=984.0 TW=991.5 BW=981.5 12"x12" CATCH BASIN RIM=980.5 INV=977.0 TW=1003.0 BW=996.60 TW=996.7 BW=989.0 4"Ø P.P TW=989 BW=982 TW=978.6 BW=976.0 TW=989 BW=970 TW=987 BW=973 TW=991.5 BW=989.0 TW=994.0 BW=989.0 TW=996 BW=989 TW=994 BW=989 TW=992 BW=989 TW=990 BW=989 TRENCH DRAIN RIM=987.7 INV=986.7 4" S.P.
4"Ø PERF. PIPE
4"Ø P.P.
4" P.P. TW=998.0 BW=986.0 TW=988 BW=970 TRENCH DRAIN RIM=986.40 INV=985.40 2+10.49 1+50.55 TRENCH DRAIN RIM=988.68 INV=987.68 LOWER FLOOR FOOTPRINT LOWER FLOOR FOOTPRINT TW=982.25 BW=972.00 5'x33' DISSIPATION AREA, SEE DETAIL "D" SHEET A-5.2 TW=1005.25 BW=997.24 TW=982.6 BW=976.0 MAIN FLOOR FOOTPRINT TW=985 BW=976 4" S.P. TW=982 BW=980
4"Ø P.P.
4"Ø P.P.
4" SOLID PIPE
4" SOLID PIPE NEW DRIVEWAY PER CITY STANDARD SEE DETAIL SHEET A4.2 EXISTING KEYSTONE RET.WALL TO BE REMOVED 1003
1000 TW=996.0 BW=988.0 TW=1007.7 BW=1000.0 TW=1014.3 BW=1003.0 TW=1013.0 BW=1003.0 TW=1011.6 BW=1000.0 TW=1004.6 BW=996.00 4"Ø P.P
4"Ø P.P
4"Ø P.P TW=987.30 BW=979.00 TW=980.72 BW=978.00
4"Ø P.P
4"S.P.
4"Ø P.P
4"Ø P.P
4"Ø P.P
996
4" P.P. TW=980.6 BW=972.0 BIO SWALE "B" (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET A-5.2) BIO SWALE "A" (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET A-5.2) TW=984 BW=979 TW=977.0 BW=972.0 4"Ø P.P. TW=989 BW=988 18 19 67 68 69
A
4 5
7 8
CALERA TERRACE(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
nce
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE (E)WM (E)PPL (E)PGE Box (E)WM (E)TS
den Fence (E)PLANTING EASEMENT Per Doc#61643AH Vol.6653, Page 82 (E)Wooden Fence
(E)Wooden Fence

4.75 5.72
BAY VI
(N) DRIVEWAY
(18' WIDE) 4"Ø SOLID PIPE TO CONNECT TO (E) STORM DRAIN, FIELD VERIFY FOUND 1" IP WITH TAG STAMPED L.S. 3451' FROM RECORD POSITION TW:982.67 BW:976.32 TW:978.00 BW:973.38 TW:975.72 BW:970.67 TW:971.16 BW:969.88 TW:973.09 BW:968.50 TW:968.87 BW:967.50 TW:965.48 BW:963.57 (E) DRIVEWAY
#171
#125 APN: 022-062-540
APN: 022-062-580
(E) CONC. WALKWAY EXISTING WOOD RET.WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STEEL & WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED

SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER 12"x12" CATCH BASIN RIM=980.5 INV=980.0
4" S.P. BIO SWALE "C" (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET A-5.2) PERMEABLE PAVERS PERMEABLE PAVERS PERMEABLE PAVERS CONCRETE DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES TW=961.0 BW=955.0 TW=961.5 BW=958.0 TW=961.80 BW=958.00 TW=955.9 BW=955.0 TW=955.00 BW=953.10 TW=955.00 BW=951.80 TW=955.00 BW=950.60 TW=958.00 BW=952.00 TW=958.00 BW=952.60TW=958.00 BW=952.70 TW=958.00 BW=953.45 TW=961.20 BW=960.00 4" P.P.
4" P.P.
4" P.P.
4" P.P.
4" P.P.
4" P.P. 4"Ø SOLID PIPE TO DISCHARGE AT DISSIPATION AREA 4"Ø SOLID PIPE TO DISCHARGE AT DISSIPATION AREA CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES (N) CONC. SWALE (N) CONC. SWALE SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
12" TREE
BUSH
5 3 BUSH
18' CANOPY
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE
CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8"
CANOPY
10'
TREE
12" TREECANOPY
20'
6" TREE
CANOPY
8'
20" TREE
30' CANOPY
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE
6"
8" TREE CANOPY
9'
CANOPY
8'
10" TREE
16' CANOPY 10" TREE 8' CANOPY 18" TREE 25' CANOPY 8" TREE 16' CANOPY 4" P.P. TW=962.00 BW=955.35TW=966.00 BW=958.20 TW=968.00 BW=961.10 TW=966.00 BW=960.70 TW=962.00 BW=960.40 (E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK 16 17
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL (ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS) 000 CONTOURS @ 2'(Original) CONTOURS @ 10' (E)RETAINING WALL (E)POST POLE LIGHT SITE/GRADING PLAN LEGEND DESCRIPTION PROPERTY LINE CENTER LINE SYMBOLS (E)TRAFFIC SIGN (E)POWER POLE (E)CITY MONUMENT (E)HYDRANT EXISTING TREE EXISTING WOODEN FENCE EXISTING IRON FENCE (E)OVERHEAD POWER LINE (E)ANCHOR (E)TELEPHONE LINE (N) RETAINING WALL (WALL FILL) (N) RETAINING WALL (WALL CUT) BIOSWALE GRADING VOLUME CALCS (ROAD) FILL: 86.08 Cu. yd. CUT: 1,489.97 Cu. yd. GRADING VOLUME CALCS (HOUSE) FILL: 594.82 Cu. yd. CUT: 518.56 Cu. yd. NET: 76.25 Cu. yd. NET: 1,403.89 Cu. yd. (E) STORM DRAIN SD SD (N) CONC. SWALE EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED 4" SOLID PIPE NEW DRIVEWAY PER CITY STANDARD SEE DETAIL SHEET A4.2 4"Ø P.P
4"Ø P.P
(E)Curb (E)PGE Box (E)WM (E)WM (E)TS

5.72 BAY VIEW ROAD (40')
(N) DRIVEWAY
(18' WIDE) (N) WATER METER 4"Ø SOLID PIPE TO CONNECT TO (E) STORM DRAIN, FIELD VERIFY TW:968.06 BW:965.10 TW:965.48 BW:963.57 (E) DRIVEWAY
(E) CONC. WALKWAY (N) CATCH BASIN RIM=968.00 INV=965.00 SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD 4"Ø SOLID PIPE TO CONNECT TO (E) STORM DRAIN, FIELD VERIFY 12" TREE
3 BUSH
18' CANOPY A-4.1 GRADING PLAN
NORTH SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS: Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525

BENDA-SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

C I V I L
STAT E
OF
CA
L I FORN I A 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET · GRADING PLAN
· BAY VIEW ROAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED CLEAR OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, STORAGE, DEBRIS, AND SOIL. DUST CONTROL AND DAILY ROAD CLEANUP WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. A PROPERLY SIGNED NO-PARKING ZONE MAY BE ESTABLISHED DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS ONLY. · ALL RECORDED SURVEY POINTS, MONUMENTS, RAILROAD SPIKES, PINS, CROSS CUTS ON TOP OF SIDEWALKS AND TAGS ON TOP OF CULVERT HEADWALLS OR END WALLS WHETHER WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED. IF SURVEY POINT/S ARE ALTERED, REMOVED OR DESTROYED, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE SERVICES OF A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR QUALIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER TO RESTORE OR REPLACE THE SURVEY POINTS AND RECORD THE REQUIRED MAP PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF THE FIRST UNIT. · EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE THAT ARE DAMAGED OR DISPLACED SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER EVEN IF DAMAGE OR DISPLACEMENT OCCURRED PRIOR TO ANY WORK PERFORMED FOR THIS PROJECT. ANY DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TO ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHETHER ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY OR NOT, THAT IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO HAVE RESULTED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. · EXISTING CURB, SIDEWALK OR OTHER STREET IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE THAT IS DAMAGED OR DISPLACED SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS DEEMED BY THE CITY ENGINEER EVEN IF DAMAGE OR DISPLACEMENT OCCURRED PRIOR TO ANY WORK PERFORMED FOR THIS PROJECT. · APPLICANT SHALL GRIND THE EXISTING ASPHALT STREET PAVEMENT WITH A MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES TO STREET CENTERLINE OR TO THE EXTENT OF THE LONGEST UTILITY TRENCH IF BEYOND THE CENTERLINE ALONG BAY VIEW ROAD, AND AN OVERLAY OF CALTRANS SPECIFICATION ½” TYPE 'A' HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY ENGINEER, DAMAGE TO THE PAVEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION IS MORE EXTENSIVE, A LARGER AREA MAY HAVE TO BE GROUND & OVERLAID. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND MARKERS SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND. · NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH RAMP AND NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARDS. WHERE THE SIDEWALK CROSSES THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH IT MUST BE ADA- COMPLIANT, PROVIDING NO MORE THAN 2% CROSS-SLOPE FOR NO LESS THAN 48” WIDTH. · ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND FROM THE NEAREST JOINT POLE OR BOX. · NEW WATERLINE FOR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARDS 300 AND 301 ALLAN BLOCK RETAINING WALL DRIVEWAY DETAIL SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" SEE COMPLETE DRIVEWAY DETAIL ON THIS SHEET 9.d Packet Pg. 802
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 980 985 990 995 1000 980 985 990 995 1000 980 985 990 995 1000 980 985 990 995 1000 -2% -15 10 0 10 15 -15 100 10 15 -15 10
0 10 15 1003 TW:1003.5 BW:994.10 TW:1014.0 BW:1003.0 TW:994.49 BW:989.00 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1003 TW:1011.16 BW:1003.00TW:1009.5 BW:1003.0 TW:996.9 BW:989.0 -15 100 10 15 -20 -20 956 960 964 968 972 956 960 964 968 972 964.63 2% -2% 956 960 964 968 972 956 960 964 968 972964.86 2% -2% 960 964 968 972 976 960 964 968 972 976966.42 2% -2% 960 964 968 972 976 960 964 968 972 976968.38 2% -2% 964 968 972 976 980 964 968 972 976 980 970.62 2% -2% 968 972 976 980 984 968 972 976 980 984973.27 2% -2% 968 972 976 980 984 988 968 972 976 980 984 988976.27 2% -2% 972 976 980 984 988 992 972 976 980 984 988 992979.28 2% -2% -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4
0 4
8 12 16 20 -5
5 -55 TW:999.30 BW:985.75 TW:994.50 BW:982.75 -2% -2% -2% TW:967.55 BW:964.80 TW:965.30 BW:963.20 TW:975.82 BW:970.80 TW:971.16 BW:969.88 TC:982.75 982.25 TW:968.04 BW:965.03 TW:970.00 BW:966.58 TW:973.15 BW:968.55 TW:978.16 BW:973.44 TW:982.71 BW:976.44 TW:988.12 BW:979.45 TW:973.76 BW:972.41 TW:978.50 BW:976.11 TW:983.86 BW:979.11 TC:985.73 TW:965.48 BW:963.57 TW:966.72 BW:965.10 TW:968.87 BW:967.50 -5 5 -55 -2% -2% -2% -2% (E) KEYSTONE RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) KEYSTONE RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) KEYSTONE RET. WALL TO REMAIN AS IS (E) STEEL & WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) KEYSTONE RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) STEEL & WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) KEYSTONE RET. WALL TO REMAIN AS IS (E) CONC. WALKWAY (E) CONC. WALKWAY (E) KEYSTONE RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) STEEL & WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) CONC. WALKWAY (E) WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) WOOD RET. WALL TO BE REMOVED EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EGEG EG EG #125 (E) HOUSE #125 (E) HOUSE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE A-4.2 J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS: Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525

BENDA-SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

TRENCH DEPTH VARIES WITH SLOPE OF DRAIN 1 A-4.3 J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS: Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525

BENDA-SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26 JAV IER M. CHAVAR IA REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET · PROFILE & DETAILS 9.d Packet Pg. 804
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) COMMON NAME SIZE 'GOLDEN GODDESS' GOLDEN GODDESS CONT. SIZE LARGE BROADLEAF TREES BOTANICAL NAME SIZE COND. CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE COMMON NAME SIZE COND. TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE 1 GAL. CONT. NATIVE BUFFER ZONE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONT. ERIOGONUM LATIFOLIUM* 1 GAL. CONT. CEANOTHUS THYRSIFLORUS 'ARROYO BRITTLE LEAF MANZANITA 1 GAL. CONT. MIMULUS AURANTIACUS* STICKY MONKEY FLOWER SIZE COND. WILD BUCKWHEAT 1 GAL. CONT. FREMONTODENDRON CALIFORNICUM* CONT. FOX TAIL AGAVE IRIS DOUGLASIANA* DOUGLAS IRIS 1 GAL. CONT. MORELLA CALIFORNICA* PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS* CULTIVATED LANDSCAPE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COND. AZTECORUM MEXICAN WEEPING BAMBOO 5 GAL. CONT. 4"POTS COMMON NAME 1 GAL. CALAMAGROSTIS NUTKAENSIS* PACIFIC REEDGRASS NASSELLA PULCHRA* PURPLE NEEDLE GRASS 1 GAL. CONT. KOELERIA MACRANTHA* CONT. COND. LAWN SOD TURF SHRUBS 1 GAL. BOTANICAL NAME PLATANUS RACEMOSA** COMMON NAME COND. BOTANICAL NAME BAMBOO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS** 4' - 6' 48" BOX BAMBUSA MULTIPLEX 5 GAL. LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME COND. COMMON NAME SYCAMORE 8' - 10' BOX AESCULUS CALIFORNICA* VINEBOTANICAL NAME COND. ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA* CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH 1 GAL. BUCKWHEAT DE LA CRUZ* CALIFORNIA LILAC 1 GAL. CONT. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CRUSTACEA* 1 GAL. CONT. NATIVE GRASS MIX* SEED TRANSITIONAL PLANTING BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ERIOGONUM LATIFOLIUM* FLANNELBUSH 5 GAL. AGAVE ATTENUATA 5 GAL. CONT. 5 GAL. CONT. COAST STRAWBERRY 4"POTS CONT. OTATEA ACUMINATA MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM MYOPORUM CONT. POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM* 1 GAL. CONT. WESTERN SWORD FERN MEADOW GRASSES BOTANICAL NAME SIZE COND. BLUE RUSH CONT. CONT. 1 GAL. CONT. FESTUCA CALIFORNICA 'RIVER HOUSE BLUES'* CALIFORNIA FESCUE JUNEGRASS 1 GAL. BIO-RETENTION PLANTING BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE JUNCUS PATENS* 1 GAL. CONT. BOTANICAL NAME SMALL BROADLEAF TREES SIZE COND. WESTERN REDBUD SIZE COND. * Indicates plant native to San Mateo County, Source:CalFlora.org ** Indicates plant native to California, Source:Calflora.org Indicates drought tolerant plant (low or very low water use). All other plants are moderate/medium water use, with the exception of cyperus papyrus, which is high water use. COMMON NAME SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM CEANOTHUS THYRSIFLORUS 'ARROYO DE LA CRUZ* CALIFORNIA LILAC 1 GAL. CONT. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CRUSTACEA* BRITTLE LEAF MANZANITA 1 GAL. CONT. 6 7891011
5432
1 ARISTIDA PURPUREA PURPLE THREE-AWN 1 GAL. CONT. CAPE RUSH 1 GAL. CONT. CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM WATER NEEDS LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS WATER NEEDS LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW-MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW-MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW-MEDIUM HIGH LOW LOW -- RETAINING WALL PLANTING HEDERA HELIX COMMON IVY 1 GAL. COMMON NAME CONT. BOTANICAL NAME SIZE COND. WATER NEEDS 12 LOW-MEDIUM

GUEST HOUSE

MAIN HOUSE

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
COURTYARD 11 11 11 11 11
7 7
7 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 4
4 4
4 4
4 5
1 1 10
1 5
5 18.00' DRIVEWAY

7.00' 66 67 68
B
A
4 5
7 8 (E)PLANTING EASEMENT Per Doc#61643AH Vol.6653, Page 82 CALERA TERRACE(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
nk Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE (E)PGE Box (E)TS
#171
#125
)Wooden Fence
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
(E)Wooden Fence
(E)Wooden Fence
ONC. WALKWAY

SPRINKLER

SPRINKLER
(E) KEYSTONE RET.WALL
1 1 10
1 1
3 2
5 5
3 3
3 2
2 3
3 3
3 4
4 3 10
9 9
9 6
6 6 11 11 11 11
1 CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
BUSH
5 3 BUSH
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE
CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8"
CANOPY
10'
TREE
12" TREECANOPY
20'
6" TREE
CANOPY
8'
20" TREE
30' CANOPY
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE
6"
8" TREE CANOPY
9'
CANOPY
8'
5 5
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK 16
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
FOUND 1" IP WITH TAG
STAMPED L.S. 3451' FROM
RECORD POSITION 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12. A-5 LANDSCAPE PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS: Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525

BENDA-SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

BIOSWALE
SIZE

BIOSWALE SCHEDULE
25'-10"x9'-4"
*DRAINAGE AREA DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)
7,799.39

PROPOSED
AREA (SQ.FT)
241.00
822.36 3'-0"x8'-8" 26.00
1,927.79 3'-0"x26'-8" 80.00
*Area to be drained by bioswale,See tributary area definition. *Bioswale area per calculations, see sheet A-5.8
**REQUIRED
AREA (SQ.FT)
233.00

25.00 42.00
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA= 10,549.54 sq.ft.

BIOSWALE
TYPE
1 2
3 TRIBUTARY AREAS DEFINITION

DRAINAGE

AREA CODE
A

DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT)
E
B
D
3,902.17

DESCRIPTION

IMPERVIOUS (ROAD)
1,927.79 IMPERVIOUS (ROAD)
822.36
3,427.99
TOTAL 5,829.96

IMPERVIOUS (ROOF)

IMPERVIOUS (ROOF)
TOTAL 4,719.58
A+B+C
E
D
C 469.23** LOWER DECK
**Only 4.44 % (469.23 sq.ft.) of total project impervious surface will be collected at hancor pipes and then pump it to bioswale "A" = 16'-0"

DRIVEWAY

COURTYARD
2 A5.2
BIOSWALE "2"

SEE DETAIL
1 A5.2
BIOSWALE "1"

SEE DETAIL

18.00' DRIVEWAY

7.00'
16 17
69 70
B
A
4 5
7 8
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
RUZ
CALERA TERRACE(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
Key-Stone
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

RIM=948.83
INV=941.50 (E)WM
(E)PPL
(E)PGE
Box
(E)WM (E)TS
(E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
wer System
#171
#125
Fence
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
Fence (E)Wooden Fence
(N) DRIVEWAY (18' WIDE)
BAY VIEW ROAD (40')

SPRINKLER

SPRINKLER
(E) CONC. WALKWAY
(N)WM
BIOSWALE "3"

WITH TRAFFIC RATED

GRATE, SEE DETAIL
3 A5.2
D
A
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
(E) LANDSCAPE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
12" TREE
BUSH 5
3 BUSH
CANOPY 18'
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8" CANOPY
10'TREE
12" TREE
CANOPY
20'
6" TREECANOPY
8'
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE 6"
8" TREE CANOPY 9'
CANOPY 8'
C
B
E
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
BIOSWALE 3
BIOSWALE 1
BIOSWALE 2
· DRAINAGE PLAN
A-5.1
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525 BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

PLAN VIEW

SECTION A

CLEAN OUT

WITH CAP

OVERFLOW RISER

WITH GRATE
ELEV:989.00 ELEV:988.50
ELEV:989.00 ELEV:989.00
4"Ø PERF. PIPE
(SUBDRAIN) INV.986.00

DISCHARGE
PIPE 6"
INV.986.00
ELEV:988.50

SECTION B
2 AREA= 26.00 SQ.FT 3/8" =1'-0"
BIO SWALE "2" DETAIL

OUTFLOW
B

PLAN VIEW
1 AREA= 284.85 SQ.FT 3/8" =1'-0"
BIO SWALE "1" DETAIL 1'
B 9'-4"
8'-11" 16'-5" 9'-4"
A

CLEAN OUT

WITH CAP
4"Ø PERF. PIPE
(SUBDRAIN)
CHRISTY V12 12"X12"

DRAIN BOX
A 6"
4"Ø PERF. PIPE (SUBDRAIN)

DISCHARGE PIPE
ELEV:982.00

OVERFLOW RISER

WITH GRATE
ELEV:982.00
ELEV:981.50
INV.979.00

SECTION A
INV.979.00
ELEV:981.50

SECTION B

CLEAN OUT
WITH CAP ELEV:982.00 1'

OPENING IN
CURB
A A

OUTFLOW
8'-8" 3'
CHRISTY V12 12"X12"

DRAIN BOX
4"Ø PERF. PIPE
(SUBDRAIN) CLEAN OUT

WITH CAP
B
B
3 AREA= 80.00 SQ.FT 3/8" =1'-0"
BIO SWALE "3" DETAIL

SECTION A

SECTION B
TRAFFIC RATED GRATE 1'

BIO-TREATMENT
SOIL
SAND
6" MIN. CLASS II
PERMEABLE ROCK 1'
12" SAND BIO TREATMENT SOILS
12" SMM WW 12 IN/HR
6" MIN. OF CLASS

II PERMEABLE ROCK
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 12" SMM WW 12 IN/HR SOIL

MEDIA SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX K OF THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY C.3 STORM WATER

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
12" SAND 6" MIN. OF CLASS

II PERMEABLE ROCK

PER CALTRANS

SPECIFICATIONS OR

SIMILAR

MUNICIPALITY-APPROVED

MATERIAL

BIO-TREATMENT
SOIL
12" SAND
6" MIN. CLASS II

PERMEABLE ROCK

BIO-TREATMENT SOIL
SAND
6" MIN. CLASS II

PERMEABLE ROCK

CLEAN OUT

WITH CAP

OVERFLOW RISER

WITH GRATE
ELEV:964.67
ELEV:965.05
INV.961.67

TRAFFIC RATED
GRATE
4"Ø PERF. PIPE
(SUBDRAIN) 12" SAND
BIO TREATMENT SOILS 12" SMM WW 12 IN/HR SOIL

MEDIA SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX K OF THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY C.3 STORM WATER

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

PLAN VIEW
A A

OUTFLOW
16'-9" 4'-9"
CHRISTY V12 12"X12"

DRAIN BOX
4"Ø PERF. PIPE (SUBDRAIN) CLEAN OUT

WITH CAP
B
B
9'-5" 16'-10"
OUTLET

REDUCER

HDPE PIPE FLOW
ACCESS
RISER
FLOW

EXCAVATION
TRENCH
90° BEND
NOTES: 1. FOR INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS, SEE STD-702 "TYPICAL RET/DET CROSS-SECTION DETAIL" AND STD-703 "TYPICAL RET/DET/CLEANOUT DETAIL" TO 2-3"Ø C.I. PIPES

CLEANOUT
FLOW
FLOW
90"
(2286 MM)

78.5"
(1994 MM)

71.9"
(1826 MM)
63"
(1600 MM)

53.1"
(1347 MM)

40.7"
(1034 MM)

33.9"
(862 MM)

28.9"
(734 MM)

25.4"
(645 MM)

TYPICAL
SPACING "C"
67"
(1702 MM)
54"
(1372 MM)
48"
(1219 MM) 42" 1067 MM)
36"
(914 MM)
28"
(711 MM) 21"
(533 MM)
18"
(457 MM)

14.5"
(368 MM)

NOMINAL
O.D.
24"
(610 MM) 24"
(610 MM) 24"
(610 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM)
12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM) 12"
(292 MM)
18"
(457 MM)
18"
(457 MM)
18"
(457 MM)
18"
(457 MM)
18"
(457 MM)
H
(TRAFFIC) H(NON-TRAFFIC)
60"
(1500 MM) 24"
(610 MM)
25"
(635 MM)
48"
(1200 MM) 42"
(1050 MM) 24"
(610 MM)
36"
(900 MM) 22"
(559 MM)
30"
(750 MM)
18"
(457 MM) 24"
(600 MM)
13"
(330 MM)
10"
(254 MM)
9"
(229 MM)
13"
(330 MM)
18"
(450 MM)
15"
(375 MM) 12"
(292 MM)
8"
(203 MM)
8"
(203 MM) 11"(279 MM) 12"
(300 MM)
TYPICAL SIDE WALL "X" TYPICAL
SPACING "S"

NOMINAL DIAMETER
NOTES: 1. ALL REFERENCES TO CLASS I OR II MATERIAL ARE PER ASTM D2321 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR

UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF THERMOPLASTIC PIPE FOR SEWERS AND OTHER GRAVITY FLOW APPLICATIONS", LATEST EDITION. 2. ALL RETENTION AND DETENTION SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321, LATEST EDITION AND THE MANUFACTURER'S PUBLISHED INSTALLATION GUIDELINES. 3. MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT THE MIGRATION OF NATIVE FINES INTO THE BACKFILL MATERIAL, WHEN REQUIRED. SEE ASTM D2321. 4. FILTER FABRIC: A GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MAY BE USED AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER TO PREVENT THE MIGRATION OF FINES FROM THE NATIVE SOIL INTO THE SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL. 5. FOUNDATION: WHERE THE TRENCH BOTTOM IS UNSTABLE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL

EXCAVATE TO A DEPTH REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER AND REPLACE WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. AS AN ALTERNATIVE AND AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DESIGN ENGINEER, THE TRENCH BOTTOM MAY BE STABILIZED USING A GEOTEXTILE MATERIAL. 6. BEDDING: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS I OR II. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATION TO ENGINEER. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BY THE ENGINEER, MINIMUM BEDDING THICKNESS SHALL BE 4" (100mm) FOR 4"-24" (100mm-600mm); 6" (150mm) FOR 30"-60" (750mm-900mm). 7. INITIAL BACKFILL: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS I OR II IN THE PIPE ZONE EXTENDING NOT LESS THAN 6" ABOVE CROWN OF PIPE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATION TO ENGINEER. MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED IN ASTM D2321, LATEST EDITION. 8. MINIMUM COVER: MINIMUM COVER OVER ALL RETNETION/DETENTION SYSTEMS IN

NON-TRAFFIC
APPLICATIONS (GRASS OR LANDSCAPE AREAS) IS 12" FROM TOP OF PIPE TO GROUND SURFACE.

ADDITIONAL COVER MAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT FLOATATION. FOR TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS, MINIMUM COVER IS 12" UP TO 36" DIAMETER PIPE AND 24" OF COVER FOR 42" - 60" DIAMETER PIPE, MEASURED FROM TOP OF PIPE TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR TO TOP OF RIGID PAVEMENT.
© 2007 HANCOR, INC. REV. DESCRIPTION BY MM/DD/YY CHK'D NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ± 1/2 INCH.

DRAWING NUMBER: NTS

SUITABLE

FOUNDATION

CLASS I OR II MATERIAL

PLACED AND COMPACTED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH
ASTM D2321 IN PIPE ZONE

FILTER FABRIC
(WHERE REQUIRED

BY ENGINEER)
H (RIGID PVMT.) H
(FLEX PVMT.)

UNDISTURBED
EARTH

BEDDING (CLASS I OR II MATERIAL)
= 4" MIN. FOR 12" - 24" PIPE
= 6" MIN. FOR 30" - 60" PIPE
H
(GRASS AREA)
REFER TO STD-702 FOR COVER HEIGHT DETAILS
REFER TO STD-702 FOR COVER HEIGHT DETAILS

CLASS I OR II MATERIAL PER
ASTM D2321, LATEST EDITION, COMPACTED IN MAX. 8" LOOSE
LIFTS TO 95% MIN. OF MAX. SPD

CLEANOUT RISER

UNDISTURBED
EARTH

SOLID WALL HDPE CLEANOUT
(4" Ø)
* LOAD BEARING CONCRETE COLLAR

AS SPECIFIED BY DESIGN ENGINEER
(WHERE REQUIRED)

UNDISTURBED
EARTH

CLASS I OR II MATERIAL PER
ASTM D2321, LATEST EDITION, COMPACTED IN MAX. 8" LOOSE
LIFTS TO 95% MIN. OF MAX. SPD

SECTION B-B

BEDDING (CLASS I OR II MATERIAL)
= 4" MIN. FOR 12" - 24" HDPE PIPE
= 6" MIN. FOR 30"-60" HDPE PIPE

SECTION A-A

BEDDING (CLASS I OR II MATERIAL)
= 4" MIN. FOR 12" - 24" HDPE PIPE
= 6" MIN. FOR 30"-60" HDPE PIPE

CORRUGATED HDPE RISER
(SPECIFY DIAMETER)

CLASS I OR II MATERIAL PER
ASTM D2321, LATEST EDITION, COMPACTED IN MAX. 8" LOOSE
LIFTS TO 95% MIN. OF MAX. SPD

UNDISTURBED
EARTH
* LOAD BEARING CONCRETE COLLAR

AS SPECIFIED BY DESIGN ENGINEER
(WHERE REQUIRED) FRAME & GRATE
(BY OTHERS)
© 2007 HANCOR, INC
* LOAD BEARING CONCRETE COLLAR SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED

IN TRAFFIC AREAS SUCH THAT THE LIVE LOAD IS TRANSMITTED TO THE SURROUNDING SOIL AND NOT DIRECTLY TO THE RISER.

C LATERAL L

LID (AS REQUIRED)

C LATERAL L
REV. DESCRIPTION BY MM/DD/YY CHK'D NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ± 1/2 INCH.

DRAWING NUMBER: NTS CRM
10/23/06 OF
1 UPDATED DRAWING TJR 03/13/07 CKS
TYPE 3: WATERSTOP GASKET W/ CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE
TM
INSTALLATION TO C.I. PIPES/ MANHOLE VIEW

DETAILED CONNECTION VIEW

FILL VOID SPACE WITH ACCEPTABLE GROUT MATERIAL STAINLESS STEEL TAKE-UP CLAMP (2 ~ PLACES) HDPE PIPE
(10"Ø)

ENSURE BACKFILL IS

PLACED UNDER PIPE AND

PROPERLY COMPACTED

STRUCTURE WALL NON-SHRINK

PATCHING

COMPOUND

STAINLESS STEEL TAKE-UP CLAMP SCREWS WILL BE
PLACED 180° FROM EACH OTHER

E HARVESTING STORAGE SYSTEM
NTS
6" MIN. OF CLASS II PERMEABLE ROCK

PER CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS OR

SIMILAR MUNICIPALITY-APPROVED

MATERIAL

DISCHARGE
PIPE
4"-6" RIP RAP
4" Ø SOLID PIPE
EXISTING GROUND 12"
5'-0"
4"Ø PERF. PIPE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
DISSIPATION AREA DETAIL 4
· DRAINAGE DETAILS
A-5.2
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525 BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 14 15
16 17
70 B
A
4 5
7 8
13 RUZ
CALERA TERRACE(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence

18.00' DRIVEWAY
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

RIM=948.83
INV=941.50 (E)WM
(E)PPL
(E)PGE
Box
(E)WM
(E)WM (E)TS
(E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
ewer System
#171
#125
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
(E)PLANTING
EASEMENT Per
Doc#61643AH
Vol.6653, Page 82
Fence (E)Wooden Fence
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
(N) DRIVEWAY (18' WIDE) BAY VIEW ROAD (40
)

7.00'
(N) WATER
METER

JOINT TRENCH FOR GAS,

ELECTRIC AND CATV

4.75 5.72 (E) CONC. WALKWAY

SPRINKLER

SPRINKLER
(E) KEYSTONE RET.WALL
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
R28'
R52'
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
12" TREE
BUSH 5
3 BUSH
CANOPY 18'
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8" CANOPY
10'TREE
12" TREE
CANOPY
20'
6" TREECANOPY
8'
18"
TREE 6"
8" TREE CANOPY 9'
CANOPY 8'
FOUND 1" IP WITH TAG
STAMPED L.S. 3451' FROM

RECORD POSITION
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
CONTOURS @ 2'(Original)
CONTOURS @ 10'
(E)RETAINING WALL
(E)POST POLE LIGHT

SITE/GRADING PLAN LEGEND

DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

SYMBOLS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)
(E)TRAFFIC SIGN
(E)POWER POLE
(E)CITY MONUMENT
(E)HYDRANT

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING WOODEN FENCE

0.60 Ac.

APN: 022 - 062 - 550

LOT INFORMATION

ABBREVIATIONS

EXISTING (E)

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSMH

STORM DRAIN INLET SDI

WATER VALVE WV

WATER METER WM

CATCH BASIN CB

FIRE HYDRANT FH

POWER POLE PP

POWER POLE LIGHT PPL

TRAFFIC SIGN TS
ORIGINAL LOT NUMBER 00
(E)TELEPHONE LINE

CALCULATED (C)

FOUND CROSS CUT ON TOP OF

CONCRETE CURB
(E) SEWER LINE S S S S
(E) WATER LINE W W W W
(E) GAS LINE G G
(N) SEWER LINE
(N) WATER LINE
(E) STORM DRAIN SD SD
project no sheet no.

Drawn by:

Checked by: JC

DATE ISSUED FOR
Sheet:
225 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE. No 400
FAX (650) 355 8965
(650) 355 0615

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
PACIFICA, CA 94044
REMARKS:

ENGINEERING
J C BAY VIEW RD - CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN : 022 - 062 - 550 290614 A-5.3

UTILITY PLAN
NORTH
SCALE: 1"= 10'-0"
· UTILITY PLAN
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

DRIVEWAY

COURTYARD

18.00' DRIVEWAY

7.00'
16 69
70 B
A
4 5
7 8
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G

TA CRUZ
CALERA TERRACE(40')
CE(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
E)Key-Stone
et. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

RIM=948.83
INV=941.50 (E)WM
(E)PPL
(E)PGE
Box
(E)WM (E)TS
(E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
(E) Ø=6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
#171
#125
Fence
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
den Fence (E)Wooden Fence
(N) DRIVEWAY (18' WIDE) BAY VIEW RO

SPRINKLER

SPRINKLER
(E) CONC. WALKWAY
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
12" TREE
BUSH 5
3 BUSH
CANOPY 18'
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8" CANOPY
10'TREE
12" TREE
CANOPY
20'
6" TREECANOPY
8'
20"
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE 6"
8" TREE CANOPY 9'
CANOPY 8'
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
SITE
COLOR

CODE AREA TYPE AREA
(Sq.Ft.)
IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAY 5,829.96
IMPERVIOUS ROOF 4,719.58
PERMEABLE PAVERS 350.65
LANDSCAPE (DISTURBED-GRADING) 3,907.23
UNDISTURBED LANDSCAPE 11,247.99
TOTAL SITE AREA 26,055.41
=15,133.41 Sq.Ft. (0.347 ACRES)

TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AREA
[(impervious driveway+impervious roof+permeable pavers+landscape (disturbed-grading)] = · SITE AREA USE
A-5.4
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525 BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

SITE AREA USE

9.d
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 14 15
16 17
18 19
20 64
65 66
67 68
69 72 70
71 C
B
A
1 2
3 4
5 7
8 13

SANTA CRUZ

BAY VIEW
CALERA TERRACE(40')
9 8
7 CALERA TERRACE(40')
TERRACE(40')
ROAD(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
1" = 16'-0"
(E)Chain Link Fence

18.00' DRIVEWAY
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)WV
(E)WV
(E)CB

EXISTING FIRE

HYDRANT
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)PP
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

RIM=948.83
INV=941.50 (E)WM
(E)PPL
(E)PGE
Box
(E)WM
(E)WM (E)TS
(E) Ø 6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
(E) Ø=6" Clay Pipe S. Sewer System
#171
#125
(E)Wooden Fence
(E)PLANTING EASEMENT(7'WIDE)
(E)PLANTING
EASEMENT Per
Doc#61643AH
Vol.6653, Page 82
(E)Wooden Fence (E)Wooden Fence
BAY VIEW ROAD(40')
(N) DRIVEWAY (18' WIDE) BAY VIEW ROAD (40')

7.00'

4.75 5.72 (E) CONC. WALKWAY

SPRINKLER

SPRINKLER
(E) KEYSTONE RET.WALL

FIRE HOSE

LINE FROM

HYDRANT

FIRE HOSE LINE

FROM HYDRANT
TO DW 88.63'

FIRE HOSE LINE

FROM HYDRANT
TOTAL LENGTH:
422.00 FT
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
R28'
R52'

FIRE HOSE LINE

FROM HYDRANT
TOTAL LENGTH:
460.00 FT

FIRE HOSE LINE

FROM HYDRANT
TOTAL LENGTH:
363.00 FT
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
12" TREE
BUSH
5 3 BUSH
CANOPY 18'
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8" CANOPY
10'TREE
12" TREE
CANOPY
20'
6" TREECANOPY
8'
20" TREE
30' CANOPY
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE 6"
8" TREE CANOPY
9'
CANOPY 8'
FOUND 1" IP WITH TAG
STAMPED L.S. 3451' FROM

RECORD POSITION
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
CONTOURS @ 2'(Original)
CONTOURS @ 10'
(E)RETAINING WALL
(E)POST POLE LIGHT

SITE/GRADING PLAN LEGEND

DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

SYMBOLS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)
(E)TRAFFIC SIGN
(E)POWER POLE
(E)CITY MONUMENT
(E)HYDRANT

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING WOODEN FENCE

0.60 Ac.

APN: 022 - 062 - 550

LOT INFORMATION

ABBREVIATIONS

EXISTING (E)

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSMH

STORM DRAIN INLET SDI

WATER VALVE WV

WATER METER WM

CATCH BASIN CB

FIRE HYDRANT FH

POWER POLE PP

POWER POLE LIGHT PPL

TRAFFIC SIGN TS
ORIGINAL LOT NUMBER 00
(E)TELEPHONE LINE

CALCULATED (C)

FOUND CROSS CUT ON TOP OF

CONCRETE CURB
(E) SEWER LINE S S S S
(E) WATER LINE W W W W
(E) GAS LINE G G
(N) SEWER LINE
(N) WATER LINE

FIRE HOSE LINE
project no sheet no.

Drawn by:

Checked by: JC

DATE ISSUED FOR
Sheet:
225 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE. No 400
FAX (650) 355 8965
(650) 355 0615

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
PACIFICA, CA 94044
REMARKS:

ENGINEERING
J C BAY VIEW RD - CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN : 022 - 062 - 550 290614 A-5.5

FIRE HOSE PLAN
NORTH
SCALE: 1"= 16'-0"
· FIRE HOSE PLAN
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 14 15
16 17
18 19
20 66
67 68
69 72 70
71 C
B
A
3 4
5 7
8 13

SANTA CRUZ
9 CALERA TERRACE(40')
TERRACE(40')
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Curb
(E)Key-Stone Ret. Wall
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)Chain Link Fence

18.00' DRIVEWAY
(E)Chain Link Fence
(E)HOUSE
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
(E)TS
(E)TS
(E)TS
RIM=906.16
NV=904.50
(E)SDI
RIM=905.57
INV=904.41
(E)SDI
RIM=905.81
(E)PP
(E)TS
(E)SSMH
ASSUMED ELEV.

7.00'

4.75 5.72 (E) CONC. WALKWAY

SPRINKLER

SPRINKLER
(E) KEYSTONE RET.WALL
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
CONC. DRIVEWAY W/ GROOVES
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
SILT
FENCE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
(N) CONC. SWALE
12" TREE
10" TREE
BUSH
5 3 BUSH
CANOPY 18'
CANOPY
16'
6" TREE
6" TREE
6" TREE CANOPY
8'
CANOPY
12'
CANOPY
12'
10" TREE CANOPY
15'
8" CANOPY
10'TREE
12" TREE
CANOPY
20'
6" TREE
CANOPY
8'
10" TREE
CANOPY
8'
18" TREE
25' CANOPY
8" TREE
CANOPY
16'
20" TREE
30' CANOPY
18" TREE
20' CANOPY
TREE 6"
8" TREE CANOPY
9'
CANOPY 8'
FOUND 1" IP WITH TAG
STAMPED L.S. 3451' FROM

RECORD POSITION
DECK
(E)HOUSE
Top of Bank

PLANTER

PLANTER
DECK
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
KEY-STONE RET. WALL
CONTOURS @ 2'(Original)
CONTOURS @ 10'
(E)RETAINING WALL
(E)POST POLE LIGHT

SITE/GRADING PLAN LEGEND

DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

SYMBOLS
(ALL SYMBOLS NOT NECESSARILY ON DRAWINGS)
(E)TRAFFIC SIGN
(E)POWER POLE
(E)CITY MONUMENT
(E)HYDRANT

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING WOODEN FENCE

0.60 Ac.

APN: 022 - 062 - 550

LOT INFORMATION

ABBREVIATIONS

EXISTING (E)

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSMH

STORM DRAIN INLET SDI

WATER VALVE WV

WATER METER WM

CATCH BASIN CB

FIRE HYDRANT FH

POWER POLE PP

POWER POLE LIGHT PPL

TRAFFIC SIGN TS
ORIGINAL LOT NUMBER 00
(E)TELEPHONE LINE

CALCULATED (C)

FOUND CROSS CUT ON TOP OF

CONCRETE CURB
(E) SEWER LINE S S S S
(E) WATER LINE W W W W
(E) GAS LINE G G
(N) SEWER LINE
(N) WATER LINE

SILT FENCE
project no sheet no.

Drawn by:

Checked by: JC

DATE ISSUED FOR
Sheet:
225 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE. No 400
FAX (650) 355 8965
(650) 355 0615

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
PACIFICA, CA 94044
REMARKS:

ENGINEERING
J C BAY VIEW RD - CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN : 022 - 062 - 550 290614 A-5.6

EROSION CONTROL
NORTH SCALE: 1"= 16'-0"
· EROSION CONTROL
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

MATERIALS & WASTE MANAGEMENT

NON-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
· BERM AND COVER STOCKPILES OF SAND, DIRT OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION

MATERIAL WITH TARPS WHEN RAIN IS FORECAST OR IF NOT ACTIVELY BEING USED WITHIN 14 DAYS.
· USE (BUT DON'T OVERUSE) RECLAIMED WATER FOR DUST CONTROL

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
· LABEL ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES (SUCH AS

PESTICIDES, PAINTS, THINNERS, SOLVENTS, FUEL, OIL, AND ANTIFREEZE) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. · STORE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES IN WATER TIGHT CONTAINERS,

STORE IN APPROPRIATE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, AND COVER THEM AT THE

END OF EVERY WORK DAY OR DURING WET WEATHER OR WHEN RAINS IS FORECAST.
· FOLLOW MANUFACTURER´S APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND BE CAREFUL NOT TO USE MORE THAN NECESSARY. DO NOT APPLY CHEMICALS OUTDOORS WHEN RAIN IS FORECAST WITHIN 24HOURS. · ARRANGE FOR APPROPRIATE DISPOSAL OF ALL HAZARDOUS WASTES.

WASTE MANAGEMENT
· COVER WASTE DISPOSAL CONTAINERS SECURELY WITH TARPS AT THE END OF EVERY WORK DAY AND DURING WET WEATHER.
· CHECK WASTE DISPOSAL CONTAINERS FREQUENTLY FOR LEAKS AND TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT OVERFILLED. NEVER HOSE DOWN A DUMPSTER ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
· CLEAN OR REPLACE PORTABLE TOILETS, AND INSPECT THEM FREQUENTLY FOR LEAKS AND SPILLS.
· DISPOSE OF ALL WASTES AND DEBRIS PROPERLY. RECYCLE MATERIALS AND

WASTES THAT CAN BE RECYCLED (SUCH AS ASPHALT, CONCRETE,AGGREGATE

BASE MATERIALS, WOOD, GYP, BOARD, PIPE, ETC)
· DISPOSE OF LIQUID RESIDUES FROM PAINTS, THINNERS, SOLVENTS, GLUES, AND CLEANING FLUIDS AS HAZARDOUS WASTE.

CONSTRUCTIONS ENTRANCE AND PERIMETER
· ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE PERIMETER CONTROLS AND STABILIZE ALL

CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND EXITS TO SUFFICIENTLY CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT DISCHARGE FROM SITE AND TRACKING OFF SITE. · SWEEP OR VACUUM ANY STREET TRACKING IMMEDIATELY AND SECURE SEDIMENT SOURCE TO PREVENT FURTHER TRACKING. NEVER HOSE DOWN STREETS TO CLEAN UP TRACKING.

EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT & SPILL

CONTROL

MAINTENANCE AND PARKING
· DESIGNATE AN AREA, FITTED WITH APPROPRIATE BMPs, FOR
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT PARKING AND STORAGE.
· PERFORM MAJOR MAINTENANCE , REPAIR JOBS, AND
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT WASHING OFF SITE.
· IF REFUELING OR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE MUST BE DONE

ONSITE, WORK IN A BERMED AREA AWAY FROM STORM

DRAINS AND OVER A DRIP PAN OR DROP CLOTHS BIG
ENOUGH TO COLLECT FLUIDS. RECYCLE OR DISPOSE OF
FLUIDS AS HAZARDOUS WASTE.
· IF VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT CLEANING BE DONE ONSITE,

CLEAN WITH WATER ONLY IN A BERMED AREA THAT WILL

NOT ALLOW RINSE WATER TO RUN INTO GUTTERS, STREETS,
STORM DRAINS, OR SURFACE WATERS.
· DO NOT CLEAN VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT ONSITE USING

SOAPS, SOLVENTS, DEGREASERS, OR STEAM CLEANING
EQUIPMENT.

SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
· KEEP SPILL CLEANUP MATERIALS (E.G, RAGS, ABSORBENTS

AND CAT LITTER) AVAILABLE AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT
ALL TIMES.
· INSPECT VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FREQUENTLY FOR AND
REPAIR LEAKS PROMPTLY . USE DRIP PANS TO CATCH LEAKS
UNTIL REPAIRS ARE MADE.
· CLEAN UP SPILLS OR LEAKS IMMEDIATELY AND DISPOSE OF
CLEANUP MATERIALS PROPERLY.
· CO NOT HOSE DOWN SURFACES WHERE FLUIDS HAVE
SPILLED. USE DRY CLEANUP METHODS (ABSORBENT

MATERIALS, CAT, LITTER, AND/ OR RAGS)
· SWEEP UP SPILLED DRY MATERIALS IMMEDIATELY . DO NOT
TRY TO WASH THEM AWAY WITH WATER, OR BURY THEM.
· CLEAN UP SPILLS ON DIRT AREAS BY DIGGING UP AND
PROPERLY DISPOSING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL.
· REPORT SIGNIFICANT SPILLS IMMEDIATELY. YOU ARE

REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPORT ALL SIGNIFICANT RELEASES
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, INCLUDING OIL. TO REPORT A
SPILL: 1) DIAL 911 OR YOUR LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE
NUMBER, 2) CALL THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES WARNING CENTER, (800) 852-7550 (24 HOURS)

EARTHMOVING
· SCHEDULE GRADING AND EXCAVATION WORK

DURING DRY WEATHER
· STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS, INSTALL AND

MAINTAIN TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS
(SUCH AS EROSION CONTROL FABRIC OR

BONDED FIBER MATRIX) UNTIL VEGETATION IS

ESTABLISHED
· REMOVE EXISTING VEGETATION ONLY WHEN

ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, AND SEED OR

PLANT VEGETATION FOR EROSION CONTROL

ON SLOPES OR WHERE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT
IMMEDIATELY PLANNED.
· PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM MIGRATING OFFSITE

AND PROTECT STORM DRAIN INLETS, GUTTERS,

DITCHES, AND DRAINAGE COURSES BY

INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE
BMP,s SUCH AS FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES,

SEDIMENTS BASINS , GRAVEL BAGS, BERMS,
ETC.
· KEEP EXCAVATED SOIL ON SITE AND

TRANSFER IT TO DUMP TRUCKS ON SITE, NOT
IN THE STREETS.

CONTAMINATED SOILS
· IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE

OBSERVED, TEST FOR CONTAMINATION AND

CONTACT THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD: - UNUSUAL SOIL CONDITIONS,DISCOLORATION,

OR ODOR
- ABANDONED UNDERGROUND TANKS
- BURIED BARRELS, DEBRIS, OR TRASH

PAVING / ASPHALT WORK
· AVOID PAVING AND SEAL COATING IN WET

WEATHER OR WHEN RAIN IS FORECAST,

TO PREVENT MATERIALS THAT HAVE NOT

CURED FROM CONTACTING STORM
WATER RUNOFF.
· COVER STORM DRAIN INLETS AND

MANHOLES WHEN APPLYING SEAL COAT,

TACK COAT, SLURRY SEAL, FOG SEAL,
ETC.
· COLLECT AND RECYCLE OR

APPROPRIATELY DISPOSE OF EXCESS
ABRASIVE GRAVEL OR SAND. DO NOT
SWEEP OR WASH IT INTO GUTTERS.
· DO NOT USE WATER TO WASH DOWN
FRESH ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT.

SAWCUTTING & ASPHALT/CONCRETE

REMOVAL
· PROTECT NEARBY STORM DRAIN INLETS
WHEN SAW CUTTING. USE FILTER FABRIC,

CATCH BASIN INLET FILTERS, OR GRAVEL

BAGS TO KEEP SLURRY OUT IF THE
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
· SHOVEL, ABOSORB, OR VACUUM SAW-CUT

SLURRY AND DISPOSE OF ALL WASTE AS

SOON AS YOU ARE FINISHED IN ONE

LOCATION OR AT THE END OF EACH

WORK DAY (WHICHEVER IS SOONER)
· IF SAWCUT SLURRY ENTERS A CATCH
BASIN, CLEAN IT UP IMMEDIATELY.

CONCRETE, GROUT & MORTAR

APPLICATION
· STORE CONCRETE, GROUT AND MORTAR AWAY

FROM STORM DRAINS OR WATERWAYS, AND ON

PALLETS UNDER COVER TO PROTECT THEM FROM
RAIN, RUNOFF, AND WIND.
· WASH OUT CONCRETE EQUIPMENT/ TRUCKS

OFFSITE OR IN A DESIGNATED WASHOUT AREA,

WHERE THE WATER WILL FLOW INTO A

TEMPORARY WASTE PIT, AND IN A MANNER THAT

WILL PREVENT LEACHING INTO THE UNDERLYING
SOIL OR ONTO SURROUNDING AREAS. LET

CONCRETE HARDEN AND DISPOSE OF AS
GARBAGE.
· WHEN WASHING EXPOSED AGGREGATE , PREVENT
WASHWATER FROM ENTERING STORM DRAINS.

BLOCK ANY INLETS AND VACUUM GUTTERS, HOSE

WASHWATER ONTO DIRT AREAS, OR DRAIN ONTO

A BERMED SURFACE TO BE PUMPED AND
DISPOSED OF PROPERLY.

LANDSCAPING
· PROTECT STOCKPILED LANDSCAPING MATERIALS

FROM WIND AND RAIN BY STORING THEM UNDER

TARPS ALL YEAR-ROUND
· STACK BAGGED MATERIAL ON PALLETS AND
UNDER COVER.
· DISCONTINUE APPLICATION OF ANY ERODIBLE
LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WITHIN 2 DAYS BEFORE A

FORECAST RAIN EVENT OR DURING WET
WEATHER.

PAINTING & PAINT REMOVAL
· NEVER CLEAN BRUSHES OR RINSE PAINT

CONTAINERS INTO A STREET, GUTTER, STORM

DRAIN, OR STREAM
· FOR WATER-BASED PAINTS, PAINT OUT BRUSHES

TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, AND RINSE INTO A
DRAIN THAT GOES TO THE SANITARY SEWER.

NEVER POUR PAINT DOWN A STORM DRAIN
· FOR OIL-BASED PAINTS, PAINT OUT BRUSHES TO

THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND CLEAN WITH THINNER
OR SOLVENT IN A PROPER CONTAINER. FILTER
AND REUSE THINNERS AND SOLVENTS. DISPOSE
OF EXCESS LIQUIDS AS HAZARDOUS WASTE.
· PAINT CHIPS AND DUST FROM NON-HAZARDOUS

DRY STRIPPING AND SAND BLASTING MAY BE

SWEPT UP OR COLLECTED IN PLASTIC DROP
CLOTHS AND DISPOSED OF AS TRASH.
· CHEMICAL PAINT STRIPPING RESIDUE AND CHIPS

AND DUST FROM MARINE PAINTS OR PAINTS

CONTAINING LEAD MERCURY, OR TRIBUTYLTIN

MUST BE DISPOSED OF AS HAZARDOUS
WASTE.LEAD BASED PAINT REMOVAL REQUIRES A
STATE-CERTIFICATED CONTRACTOR.

DEWATERING
· DISCHARGES OF GROUNDWATER OR CAPTURED

RUNOFF FROM DEWATERING OPERATIONS MUST
BE PROPERLY MANAGED AND DISPOSED. WHEN

POSSIBLE SEND DEWATERING DISCHARGE TO
LANDSCAPE AREA OR SANITARY SEWER. IF

DISCHARGING TO THE SANITARY SEWER CALL
YOUR LOCAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
· DIVERT RUN-ON WATER FROM OFFSITE AWAY

FROM ALL DISTURBED AREAS
· WHEN DEWATERING, NOTIFY AND OBTAIN

APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

BEFORE DISCHARGING WATER TO A STREET
GUTTER OR STORM DRAIN. FILTRATION OR

DIVERSION THROUGH A BASIN, TANK OR SEDIMENT

TRAP MAY BE REQUIRED
· IN AREAS OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED

CONTAMINATION, CALL YOUR LOCAL AGENCY TO

DETERMINE WHETHER THE GROUND WATER MUST
BE TESTED. PUMPED GROUNDWATER MAY NEED

TO BE COLLECTED AND HAULED OFF-SITE FOR

TREATMENT AND PROPER DISPOSAL
CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT , THE STORM WATER BEST (MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ( BMP) O THIS PAGE, AS HER APPLY TO YOU PROJECT, ALL YEAR LONG.

STORM DRAIN POLLUTERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR FINES OF UP TO $10,000 PER DAY project no sheet no.

Drawn by:

Checked by: JC

DATE ISSUED FOR
Sheet:
225 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE. No 400
FAX (650) 355 8965
(650) 355 0615

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
PACIFICA, CA 94044
REMARKS:

ENGINEERING
J C BAY VIEW RD - CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN : 022 - 062 - 550 290614 A-5.7
· CONSTRUCTION BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
(BMPs)
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) · BIOSWALE CALCULATIONS
A-5.8
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:

Sheet:

DATE ISSUED FOR
Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525 BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

9.d
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) E
E
2 2
G
G
10 10
J
J
D
D
D01
D02
D03 D07
D05 D06 D13 D12 D11 D09
W01
W10 W09
W13 D/W
DN
OFFICE
7'-11"x16'-0"

GUEST ROOM
15'-6"x10'-6"
CLOSET
6'-0"x3'-9"
BATH
6'-0"x8'-0"
5'-0"x5'-5"
POWDER
ROOM

ELEVATOR
6'-0"x5'-5"

GREAT ROOM
15'-5"x27'-8"

KITCHEN
15'-5"x12'-7"

DBL OVEN
REF.

MUDDROOM

61.33 SQ.FT.

PANTRY

35.93 Sq.Ft.

GARAGE
19'-10"x20'-0"
GARAGE
10'-11"18'-0" BALCONY 185.25 SQ FT
20 (R)=7.5"
19 (T)=11"
MECH. EQUIP.

MAIN FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

UTILITY BROOMS / MOP

LAUNDRY
SHOOT
42" HIGH

RAILING
ENTRY
4:12
DN
985.00
985.00
983.00
986.50
986.50
GAS

FIREPLACE
A-9 A-9
A A
A-11
C
I
I
9 9
6 6
1 1
4 4
5 5
B
B
C
C
F
F
11 11
3 3
7 7
8 8
4:12
4:12

PROJECTION

LOWER FLOOR

PROJECTION

LOWER FLOOR

PROJECTION

LOWER FLOOR

PROJECTION

LOWER FLOOR
W12
W01
W12 W11 D06 D06 D04 BALCONY 72.17 SQ FT
6'-2"
A-10
A-10 B
B BALCONY 558.01 SQ FT BALCONY 88.86 SQ FT
A
A
44'-5" 30'-7" 30' 12'-4" 17'-11" 15'
6'-2"
6'-5"
12'-4"
135°
14'-5"
8'-6"
20'-4"
14'-2"
19'
20'-4"
11'-11"
15'-5" 6'-8"135° 20' 4'-6"
13'-5" 5'
18'-10" 5'-11" 5'-11" 4'-3" 8'-6" 15'-9" 18'-8" 1'-9" 36'-2" 33'-2" 25'-9" 29'-2"
25'-4" 18'-1" 13'-5"
36'-10"
8'-6"
15'-4"
6'-9"
30'-7"
6"
10'-11"
D03
985.00
DN
985.00
983.00
983.00
983.00
4'
4 (R)=7.5"
3 (T)=11"
985.00 4 (R)=6" 3 (T)=11"

7.757.75

2.5 989.00 987.50
DN
4'-3" 4'-10"
3 (R)=6"
2 (T)=11"

ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
984.83
984.83
DN
983.00
DN
4 (R)=5" 3 (T)=15"
D03
W02 W05 W06 W07 W08
4 (R)=6"
3 (T)=11"
4:12 11'-6" 86'-9"
18'
23'-1"
3'-6"
8"
15'-6" 10'-6" 16' 3'-5"
8'-11"
4'-6"
6' 12'-7" 27'-8" 17'-1" 13'-5" 1'-11"
6'-2" 16' 7' 8'-11"
23'
56'-10"
8'-6"
6'-2"
W21
W21 W11 W11
W01 W03
5'-6"
3'-11" 8'-10" CABINETS
8'-6"
4'-5"
CABINETS CABINETS 6'-5" 6'-2" D04 D04
A-12 A-12
D D
2 2
A
A

LOWER FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

ELEVATOR
6'-0"x5'-5"

CABINETS SHELVES

SHELVES BUILT IN CLOSET

SHELVES

LAUNDRY

86.61.FT.

MASTER BEDROOM
14'-7" x14'-2"
CLOSET
6'-7"x6'-0"
CLOSET
7'-1"x6'-0"
BATH
8'-11"x5'-6"
BEDROOM 1
11'-7"x11'-2"

PLAYROOM
15'-3"x10'-6" HALLWAY HALLWAY
BEDROOM 2
11'-7"x11'-2"
BATH
7'-5"x5'-6"

MEDIA CL

32.8 Sq.Ft. MECH 8'-2"x4'-11"

LAUNDRY
SHOOT

CRAWL SPACE AREA

BELOW GARAGE

CABINETS
STORAGE 4'-2"x4'-9"
BATH
8'-11"x9'-9"
3'-2"
3'-2" 20 (R)=7.5" 19 (T)=11"

BUILT IN
CLOSET
975.00
A-9 A-9
A A

PROJECTION

MAIN FLOOR

PROJECTION

MAIN FLOOR

PROJECTION

MAIN FLOOR

PROJECTION

MAIN FLOOR
A-11
C
10 10
9 9
6 6
1 1
4 4
5 5
11 11
3 3
7 7
8 8
8'-1"
W18 W19 W17W18 D08 D10 D04
D04
D16 D05 D12 D16 D04 D04 D06 D06 D06
D04 D04
D15
D14 BALCONY 558.01 SQ FT BALCONY 88.86 SQ FT
6' A-10
A-10 B
B
G
G
D
D
B
B
C
C
E
E
F
F 11'-2" 10'-6" 11'-2" 1'-3" 9'-11"
3' 2'-9" 7'-10" 4'-3" 5'-6" 14'-2" 8'-8" 5'-5" 16'-1" 1'-9" 20'-8" 17'-11" 14'-1" 6'-5" 8'-9"
6'-4" 1'-5"
14'-7"
6'
3'-5"
3'-3" 5'-8" 4'-8"
13'-7" 2'-6"
6 6
975.00
975.00
6'-4"
973.00
973.00
973.00
973.00
UP
975.00
975.00
974.83
976.83
972.83
974.83
11'-3" 11'-6" 11'
42'-6"
W02
W04 W14 W15 W14 W16
DN
4 (R)=6"
3 (T)=11"
W20
7'-5" 5'-6"
11'-7"
15'-3"
11'-7" 5'-6"
8'-11"
1'-5" 2'-6" 6'
4'-11" 8'-2" 4'-6" 7'-1" 6'-7" 45' 6'-5" 11'-6" 77' 11'-6" 88'-6" 12'-9" 5'-11" 20'-4" 11' 88'-6" A-11 A-11
C C
DN
4(R) @ 6"
3(T) @ 11"
DN
973.00

LIBRARY / HOMEWORK AREA
4(R) @ 6"
3(T) @ 11"
A-12 A-12
D D
· PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
A-6
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:BENDA -SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

DATE ISSUED FOR
12/03/18 PLANING SET
05/23/19 PLANING SET
03/23/2021 PLANING SET
04/21/2021 PLANING SET
09/10/2021 PLANING SET
09/24/2021 PLANING SET
06/22/2022 PLANING SET
02/17/2023 PLANING SET
05/23/2023 PLANING SET
10/16/2023 PLANING SET
10/21/2024 PLANING SET
D##: SEE DOOR SCHEDULE SHEET A6.1
W##: SEE WINDOWS SCHEDULE SHEET A6.1
D##: SEE DOOR SCHEDULE SHEET A6.1
W##: SEE WINDOWS SCHEDULE SHEET A6.1 NORTH NORTH

9.d
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

ELEVATOR

CRAWL SPACE AREA
BELOW GARAGE BALCONY 558.01 SQ FT BALCONY 88.86 SQ FT
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN BALCONY 185.25 SQ FT
ENTRY
4:12
DN
4:12
4:12 BALCONY 72.17 SQ FT BALCONY 558.01 SQ FT BALCONY 88.86 SQ FT DN

7.757.75

2.5 DN
DN
DN
4:12 B
A
D
C
E
F
G
J
H
I
K
L

MAIN FLOOR PLAN AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

LOWER FLOOR PLAN AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
2'-10" 11' 16'-6" 6'-10" 23'-3" 17'-8" 11'-4" 86'-7"16' 7' 3'-11" 29'-10" 12'-9" 5'-11" 8'-10" 20'-11" 7'-8" 8'-5" 13'-5" 1'-11" 86'-9" 7'-8" 11'-6" 6'-3" 10'-1" 7'-10" 13'-5"
56'-10"
V P
R
S
Q
U
T
8' 7'-11" 15'-7"
42'-6" 14'-1" 6'-6" 15'-11" 32'-7" 7'-11" 77' 19'-5" 12'-3" 20'-4" 15'-11" 6'-6" 14'-1" 88'-6" 2'-10" 22'-8"
11'
W 6'-11"
25'-6"

MAIN FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT)
C 135.60
D 131.10
E 40.78
F 381.10
G 129.13
H 77.08
I 312.26
J-STAIRS 94.44
K 176.25
L 89.23
ELEVATOR 41.41
TOTAL LIVING AREA 1608.38
A 222.46
B 446.36
GARAGE AREA (A+B) 668.82
W (MECH & STORAGE) 126.17
ENTRY 37.64
BALCONY 1 185.25
BALCONY 2 72.17

LOWER FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT)
P 94.50
Q 65.13
R 532.64
S 395.29
T 165.73
U 318.84
TOTAL LIVING AREA 1572.13
V (CRAWL SPACE) 490.62
BALCONY 3 558.01
BALCONY 4 88.86

DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER QTY WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
D01 1 9'-0" 7'-0" GARAGE DOOR - D02 1 16'-0" 7'-0" GARAGE DOOR - D03 3 3'-0" 6'-8" HINGED - D04 9 2'-6" 6'-8" POCKET - D05 2 2'-4" 6'-8" POCKET - D06 6 6'-0" 7'-0" DOUBLE HINGED MARVIN ULTIMATE SWINGING ARCH TOP FRENCH DOOR D07
D08
D09 1 7'-0" 7'-0" FOLDING STACKING GLASS WALLS
D10 - D11 1 2'-6" 6'-8" HINGED - D12 2 2'-6" 6'-8" HINGED ELEVATOR D13 1 5'-0" 6'-8" DOUBLE HINGED - D14 1 4'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING - D15 1 4'-6" 6'-8" SLIDING - D16 2 2'-6" 6'-8" HINGED - 1 4'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING
1 11'-0" 7'-0" FOLDING STACKING GLASS WALLS
1 2'-6" 6'-8" POCKET SOLID CORE

WINDOWS SCHEDULE

NUMBER QTY WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
W01 3 6'-0" 3'-6" SLIDING W/ SHUTTER
W02 2 1'-0" 2'-0" FIX
W03 1 2'-0" 5'-6" FIX
W04 1 6'-0" 3'-6" SLIDING
W05 1 3'-0" 3'-0" SLIDING
W06 1 8'-6" 3'-0" SLIDING
W07 1 4'-0" 4'-0" SLIDING
W08 1 8'-6" 4'-0" SLIDING
W09 1 6'-0" 9'-0" FIX
W10 1 6'-0" 4'-0" FIX
W11 3 5'-0" 4'-6" FIX
W12 2 4'-0" SLIDING W / SHUTTER
W13 1 4'-0" 2'-0" SLIDING
W14 2 3'-0" 4'-0" SLIDING
W15 1 5'-0" 4'-0" FIX
W16 1 4'-0" 4'-0" FIX
W17 1 8'-6" 4'-0" FIX - W18 2 4'-0" SLIDING W / SHUTTER W19 1 4'-0" 1'-6" SLIDING
W20 1 6'-0" 3'-6" SLIDING
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 3'-0"
3'-0"
W21 2 4'-0" 6'-6" FIX -
· AREA CALCULATION
· WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE
A-6.1
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:BENDA -SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

9.d
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 2 2 3 45 5 5 9 2 2 2 14 14 14 14 14 12 5 10 10 4 4 4.1 3 4 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 MAIN FLOOR 2 983.00 TOP OF ROOF 1 997.58 TOP OF PLATE 1 993.00 TOP OF CHIMNEY 1001.16 2'-7" 2' 8' 4'-7" 3'-7"
20'-8" GARAGE FLOOR 986.50 TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 2 999.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 2 994.50 TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 1 997.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 1 994.00 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 MAIN FLOOR 2 983.00 LOWER FLOOR 2 973.00 LOWER FLOOR 975.00 5'-6" 2' 1'-6" 7'-6" 6" 3'-4" 2'
22'-4" (N) ROOF EAGLE ROOFING TILE CAPISTRANO-3526 VALENCIA HUES OF RED ORANGE, BROWN STREAKS (N) WINDOWS WOOD WINDOW MILGARD WINDOW INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX GLIDER COLOR: BRONZE (EXTERIOR FINISH) (N) MOULDING STUCCO SHASTA WHITE LRV55 BASE A (N) EXTERIOR WALLS (N) GARAGE DOOR ZIEGLER DOOR SPANISH OLD WORLD WOOD GARAGE DOORS ELEVATION LEGEND (N)DECK DOOR MILGARD DOOR PATIO DOOR STACKING GLASS WALLS IN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED COLOR: DARK(EXTERIOR SHASTA WHITE LRV55 FINISH) BASE A 7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS. GARAGE DOOR VENTS 2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION AIR OPENING AT THE BOTTOM SECTION OF THE GARAGE DOOR. (N) ORNAMENTAL IRON MILL CITY IRON ORNAMENTAL WALL DECORATIVE ACCENT (N) CORBELS EKENA MILLWORK 7-1/2 IN. X 14 IN. X 30 IN. NEW BRIGHTON SMOOTH WESTERN CORBEL WITH BACKPLATE (N) ROSETTE EKENA MILLWORK 6-7/8 IN. X 1 IN. X 6-7/8 IN. WOOD ALDER MEDIUM KENT FLORAL ROSETTE (N) ENTRY DOORS KNOTTY ALDER MEADOWLANDS 6 LITE SINGLE DOOR/ROUND TOP, 2-1/4 THICK GLASS OPTIONS: CLEAR LOW E OR FLEMISH LOW E DOOR: 3'6" X 8'0" X 2-1/4" (N) SHUTTERS WOOD (N)DECK DOOR MARVIN ULTIMATE DOOR PATIO DOOR MARVIN ULTIMATE SWINGING ARCH TOP FRENCH DOOR 12 34 4.156 78 910 1112 (N) BARBECUE JAMAICA PREMIER STONE BARBECUE 13 (N) EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE SKU: 7311-1 7311-1 SPANISH STYLE BELL WALL LAMP LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE 1415 (N) PV PANELS 16 ILLUMINATED NUMBERS AT FRONT 4 12 1 1 1 1 1 22 2 3 4 4.1 5 7 15 15 15 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 MAIN FLOOR 2 983.00 LOWER FLOOR 2 973.00 LOWER FLOOR 975.00 TOP OF PLATE 2 997.00 TOP OF ROOF 2 1000.25 TOP OF ROOF 4 1001.16 TOP OF ROOF 1 997.58 TOP OF PLATE 1 993.00 TOP OF CHIMNEY 1001.16 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 2 994.50 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 LOWER FLOOR 975.00 5' 2' 8' 2' 8' 4'-7" 3'-7"
33'-2"
1'-7" 6'-10" 10' 1'-6" 8' 2'-6" 4'-2"
34'-6" 3 4.1 4 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 7 7 7 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4:12 4:12 4 12 5 5 5 2 958.00 955.00 955.00 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE 7311-1 SPANISH STYLE BELL WALL LAMP LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE A-7 · ELEVATIONS J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26 JAV IER M. CHAVAR IA REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 816
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 4 12 1
1 1
2 2
2 3
3 4
4 3
4 NORTHWEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
℄ GARAGE FLOOR 986.50
1 4
4 4
4 4
3 3
3 2
2 215 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 MAIN FLOOR 2 983.00 LOWER FLOOR 2 973.00 LOWER FLOOR 975.00 5'-1" 2' 8' 2' 12' 4'-2"
33'-3" TOP OF PLATE 2 997.00 TOP OF ROOF 4 1001.16 TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 2 999.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 2 994.50 TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 1 997.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 1 994.00 1'-9" 7'-6" 6" 3'-4" 2'
15'-1" 12
6 4.1
3 4.1
5 4.1 962.00958.00 968.00 955.00
PROPERTY LINE 17'-3" (N) ROOF EAGLE ROOFING TILE CAPISTRANO-3526 VALENCIA HUES OF RED ORANGE, BROWN STREAKS (N) WINDOWS WOOD WINDOW MILGARD WINDOW INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX GLIDER COLOR: BRONZE (EXTERIOR FINISH) (N) MOULDING STUCCO SHASTA WHITE LRV55 BASE A (N) EXTERIOR WALLS (N) GARAGE DOOR ZIEGLER DOOR SPANISH OLD WORLD WOOD GARAGE DOORS ELEVATION LEGEND (N)DECK DOOR MILGARD DOOR PATIO DOOR STACKING GLASS WALLS IN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED COLOR: DARK(EXTERIOR SHASTA WHITE LRV55 FINISH) BASE A 7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS. GARAGE DOOR VENTS 2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION AIR OPENING AT THE BOTTOM SECTION OF THE GARAGE DOOR. (N) ORNAMENTAL IRON MILL CITY IRON ORNAMENTAL WALL DECORATIVE ACCENT (N) CORBELS EKENA MILLWORK 7-1/2 IN. X 14 IN. X 30 IN. NEW BRIGHTON SMOOTH WESTERN CORBEL WITH BACKPLATE (N) ROSETTE EKENA MILLWORK 6-7/8 IN. X 1 IN. X 6-7/8 IN. WOOD ALDER MEDIUM KENT FLORAL ROSETTE (N) ENTRY DOORS KNOTTY ALDER MEADOWLANDS 6 LITE SINGLE DOOR/ROUND TOP, 2-1/4 THICK GLASS OPTIONS: CLEAR LOW E OR FLEMISH LOW E DOOR: 3'6" X 8'0" X 2-1/4" (N) SHUTTERS WOOD (N)DECK DOOR MARVIN ULTIMATE DOOR PATIO DOOR MARVIN ULTIMATE SWINGING ARCH TOP FRENCH DOOR 1 2
34 4.1
5 6
78 910 1112 (N) BARBECUE JAMAICA PREMIER STONE BARBECUE 13 (N) EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE SKU: 7311-1 7311-1 SPANISH STYLE BELL WALL LAMP LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE 1415 (N) PV PANELS 16 ILLUMINATED NUMBERS AT FRONT EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE 7311-1 SPANISH STYLE BELL WALL LAMP LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE A-8 · ELEVATIONS J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

C I V I L
STAT E
OF
CA
L I FORN I A Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 817
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) ℄ 4 12 1 3 4 4.1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 1 1 1 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 14 14 14 14 4 3 12 123 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 10 10 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 MAIN FLOOR 2 983.00 LOWER FLOOR 2 973.00 LOWER FLOOR 975.00 TOP OF CHIMNEY 1001.16 5' 2' 8' 2' 8' 4' TOP OF PLATE 2 997.00 TOP OF ROOF 1 997.58 TOP OF PLATE 1 993.003'-7" 7" TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 1 997.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 1 994.00 5'-3" 3'-10"
9'-1" 2 2 2 2 2 2 ℄ 962.00 958.00 966.00 961.20 966.00 968.00 964.00 962.00 33'-2" 953.00
2' 3'-11"

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 17'-3" (N) ROOF EAGLE ROOFING TILE CAPISTRANO-3526 VALENCIA HUES OF RED ORANGE, BROWN STREAKS (N) WINDOWS WOOD WINDOW MILGARD WINDOW INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX GLIDER COLOR: BRONZE (EXTERIOR FINISH) (N) MOULDING STUCCO SHASTA WHITE LRV55 BASE A (N) EXTERIOR WALLS (N) GARAGE DOOR ZIEGLER DOOR SPANISH OLD WORLD WOOD GARAGE DOORS ELEVATION LEGEND (N)DECK DOOR MILGARD DOOR PATIO DOOR STACKING GLASS WALLS IN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED COLOR: DARK(EXTERIOR SHASTA WHITE LRV55 FINISH) BASE A 7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT APPLICATION WITH WOOD OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3 1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS. GARAGE DOOR VENTS 2 - 4"X6" COMBUSTION AIR OPENING AT THE BOTTOM SECTION OF THE GARAGE DOOR. (N) ORNAMENTAL IRON MILL CITY IRON ORNAMENTAL WALL DECORATIVE ACCENT (N) CORBELS EKENA MILLWORK 7-1/2 IN. X 14 IN. X 30 IN. NEW BRIGHTON SMOOTH WESTERN CORBEL WITH BACKPLATE (N) ROSETTE EKENA MILLWORK 6-7/8 IN. X 1 IN. X 6-7/8 IN. WOOD ALDER MEDIUM KENT FLORAL ROSETTE (N) ENTRY DOORS KNOTTY ALDER MEADOWLANDS 6 LITE SINGLE DOOR/ROUND TOP, 2-1/4 THICK GLASS OPTIONS: CLEAR LOW E OR FLEMISH LOW E DOOR: 3'6" X 8'0" X 2-1/4" (N) SHUTTERS WOOD (N)DECK DOOR MARVIN ULTIMATE DOOR PATIO DOOR MARVIN ULTIMATE SWINGING ARCH TOP FRENCH DOOR 12 34 4.156 78 910 1112 (N) BARBECUE JAMAICA PREMIER STONE BARBECUE 13 (N) EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE SKU: 7311-1 7311-1 SPANISH STYLE BELL WALL LAMP LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE 1415 (N) PV PANELS 16 ILLUMINATED NUMBERS AT FRONT EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE 7311-1 SPANISH STYLE BELL WALL LAMP LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE A-8.1 · ELEVATIONS J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 26'-8" 34'-5" NORTHEAST ELEVATION 4:12 4:12 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 38'-11" 30'-9" SOUTHWEST ELEVATION A-8.2
· ELEVATIONS ENLARGED VIEW J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 17'-3" SOUTHEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ℄
PROPERTY LINE 17'-3"
PROPERTY LINE 41'-11" NORTHWEST ELEVATION A-8.3
· ELEVATIONS ENLARGED VIEW J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

C I V I L
STAT E
OF
CA
L I FORN I A Sheet: DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 820
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) ATTIC SPACE LOWER FLOOR 975.00 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 TOP OF PLATE 2 997.00 TOP OF ROOF 2 1000.25 TOP OF ROOF 4 1001.08 3'-3" 10"
32'-9"
9' CL
12' CL PLAY ROOM GREAT ROOM CRAWL SPACESECTION A-A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING GRADE 7'-7"
4 12
4 12
℄ STATION 0+18.31 ELEV: 989.85 TW:1000.60 BW:990.35 TW:1007.9 BW:1000.0 958.00 12' 10' 6'-5"
2 1 CRAWL SPACE FILL AREA CUT AREA 6'-2" 26'-8" TO PROPERTY LINE A-9 · SECTION A J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Sheet: Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

C I V I L
STAT E
OF
CA
L I FORN I A DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 821
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) PLATFORM FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SECTION B-B SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ATTIC SPACE CRAWL SPACE MAIN FLOOR 986.50 TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 2 999.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 2 994.50 GARAGE 2'-1" 3'-4"
25'-2" FIRE TRUCK TURN AROUND DRIVEWAY SLOPE 9.0% STREET SLOPE SLOPE 2.00% ℄ (E) GRADE 12' DRIVEWAY CUT AREA FILL AREA CUT AREA
1'-8"
2 1
8'
4 12
4 12
8' CL
7'-6"
4 12 TOP OF ROOF GARAGE 1 997.83 TOP OF PLATE GARAGE 1 994.00 6"
2' 72'-4" TO PROPERTY LINE A-10
· SECTION B J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Sheet: Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

C I V I L
STAT E
OF
CA
L I FORN I A DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 822
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) MASTER BEDROOM CRAWL SPACE CLOSET BATH ATTIC SPACE SECTION C-C SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" F.FLOOR 983.00 TOP OF ROOF 1 997.58 TOP OF PLATE 1 993.00 LOWER FLOOR TOP OF CHIMNEY 1001.16 TOP OF ROOF 2 1000.25 973.00 4'-7" 3'-7" 5'-3" 10' 10'
35'
9' CL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 8'-11" 3'-11" FILL AREA CUT AREA 989.00 10' CL
4 12
4 12
℄ GUEST ROOM
PROPERTY LINE 15'-9" A-11
· SECTION C J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Sheet: Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26

JAV IER
M. CHAVAR IA

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S

S IONAL

ENGINEER

C I V I L
STAT E
OF
CA
L I FORN I A DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 823
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) ATTIC SPACE LOWER FLOOR 975.00 MAIN FLOOR 985.00 TOP OF PLATE 2 997.00 TOP OF ROOF 2 1000.25 4'-2"
33'-9"
9' CL GREAT ROOM CRAWL SPACE SECTION D-D SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 7'-7" 4 12 4 12 958.0012' 10' 6'-5" 2 1 CRAWL SPACE FILL AREA CUT AREA 6'-2" GAS FIREPLACE 12' CL HALLWAY BEDROOM 1 TOP OF CHIMNEY 1001.16
10' CL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 989.00
9' CL ℄ ENTRY
8'-6" CL
PROPERTY LINE 22'-6" A-12 · SECTION D J C ENGINEERING 848 BURNS CT. PACIFICA, CA 94044 (650) 355 0615 FAX (650) 355 8965 CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REMARKS:

BENDA -SPENKER

RESIDENCE

BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE
PACIFICA, CA 94044
APN: 022-062-550 Sheet: Checked by: Drawn by: JC project no sheet no. 20180525 06 / 30 / 26 JAV IER M. CHAVAR IA REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINEER C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A DATE ISSUED FOR 12/03/18 PLANING SET 05/23/19 PLANING SET 03/23/2021 PLANING SET 04/21/2021 PLANING SET 09/10/2021 PLANING SET 09/24/2021 PLANING SET 06/22/2022 PLANING SET 02/17/2023 PLANING SET 05/23/2023 PLANING SET 10/16/2023 PLANING SET 10/21/2024 PLANING SET 9.d Packet Pg. 824
Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) G
G

10.1 J
J
D15
D16
D17
W16 W15
W12 W13
W17

GUEST HOUSE FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11'-11" 6'-2" 12'-6" 12' 13'-9"
BATH
8'-0"x4'-6"
CLOSET
4'-7"x2'-0"
CLOSET
5'-8"x2'-0"

KITCHEN
14'-4"x13'-3"

BEDROOM
11'-5"x11'-0"

BEDROOM
11'-6"x11'-0"
BATH
5'-8"x5'-0"
989.00
989.00 989.00

ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
A-13.1
F F
I
I
9 9
6 6 W14 D04
D04
D15 D15
D15 D04
D21
30'-7" 25'-9" 11'-6" 25'-9"
8'-6" 15'-4" 6'-9"
30'-7" 2'-6" 4'-6" 5'-6" 1'-9"

10.1 A-13.1
A-13.1
E
E
A-13.1

RIGHT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION

DWELLING UNIT DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER QTY WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
D04 3 2'-6" 6'-8" POCKET - D15 4 2'-6" 6'-8" HINGED - D16 1 4'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING - D17 1 5'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING - D21 1 6'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING - DWELLING UNIT WINDOW SCHEDULE

NUMBER QTY WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE DESCRIPTION
W12 1 6'-0" 4'-0" SLIDING
W13 1 4'-0" 2'-6" SLIDING
W14 1 6'-0" 4'-0" SLIDING
W15 1 6'-0" 3'-0" SLIDING
W16 1 4'-0" 3'-6" SLIDING
W17 1 4'-0" 2'-6" SLIDING
-
-
-
-
-
- GUEST HOUSE UNIT AREA CALCULATION
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
30'-7" 12' 13'-9" 25'-9"
M
N 12' O 12'
8'-6" 15'-4" 6'-9"
30'-7" 1'-9" 25'-9"

GUEST HOUSE AREA CALCULATION
DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ.FT)
M 102.04
N 210.81
O 366.91
TOTAL LIVING AREA 679.76
TOP OF ROOF 2
1000.17'
TOP OF ROOF 3
1001.67

FINISH FLOOR
989.00'

TOP OF PLATE
997.00' 8' 3'-2" 1'-5" 12'-8"
TOP OF ROOF 3
1001.67

TOP OF PLATE
997.00'

FINISH FLOOR
989.00' 8'
TOP OF ROOF 1
999.75' 2'-9" 1'-11" 12'-8"

NORTHEAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 4
2 4.1
3 9

4.1 3
4 2
5 4
12 4
12 4:12
5 4
12 4
12 TOP OF ROOF 2 4:12
1000.17'

TOP OF ROOF
1001.67

FINISH FLOOR
989.00'

TOP OF PLATE
997.00' 4'-10" 8' 3'-2" 1'-5"

SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 17'-6"
1 5 1
2 2
TOP OF ROOF 3
1001.67

TOP OF PLATE
997.00'

FINISH FLOOR
989.00' 8'
TOP OF ROOF 1
999.75' 2'-9" 1'-11" 12'-8"
4 12
4 12
4:12
4:12

SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 4

4.1 4.1
2 3
3 1
6 9
5 TOP OF ROOF 3
1001.67

TOP OF PLATE
997.00'

FINISH FLOOR
989.00' 8'
TOP OF ROOF 1
999.75' 2'-9" 1'-11" 12'-8"
TOP OF ROOF 2
1000.17'

TOP OF ROOF
1001.67

FINISH FLOOR
989.00'

TOP OF PLATE
997.00' 6'-10" 8' 3'-2" 1'-5"
4 12
4 12
4 12
4:12

NORTHWEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 19'-5"
5 5
1 1
4 4
9 3
3 4.1
2 2
2 8
(N) ROOF

EAGLE ROOFING TILE
CAPISTRANO-3526 VALENCIA

HUES OF RED ORANGE,

BROWN STREAKS
(N) WINDOWS

WOOD WINDOW

MILGARD WINDOW

INTEGRITY ALL ULTREX
GLIDER
COLOR: BRONZE (EXTERIOR

FINISH)
(N) MOULDING
STUCCO
SHASTA WHITE LRV55
BASE A
(N) EXTERIOR WALLS

ELEVATION LEGEND
(N)EXTERIOR DOOR

MILGARD DOOR

PATIO DOOR

STACKING GLASS WALLS IN

ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD
GLASS: LOW E2 TEMPERED
COLOR: DARK(EXTERIOR

FINISH)
SHASTA WHITE LRV55
BASE A 7/8" STUCCO 3 COAT

APPLICATION WITH WOOD

OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE
D BUILDING PAPER. PROVIDE 3
1/2" WEEP SCREED AT A
MINIMUM OF 4' ABOVE EARTH
OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS.
(N) CORBELS

EKENA MILLWORK
7-1/2 IN. X 14 IN. X 30 IN.

NEW BRIGHTON SMOOTH

WESTERN CORBEL WITH

BACKPLATE
(N) SHUTTERS
WOOD
1 2
3 4

4.1 5
6 9 (N) EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE
SKU: 7311-1
7311-1 SPANISH STYLE

BELL WALL LAMP
LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE
(N) DOOR

MILGARD DOOR

MODERN WOODEN DOOR
8 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE
7311-1 SPANISH STYLE

BELL WALL LAMP
LAMPING-1*60-WATT MEDIUM BASE
· (P) GUEST HOUSE FLOOR PLAN
· (P) GUEST HOUSE ELEVATIONS
· (P) GUEST HOUSE AREA

CALCULATION
· (P) GUEST HOUSE SECTION E
A-13
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:BENDA -SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

9.d
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) 8' CL

ATTIC SPACE

CRAWL SPACE

BEDROOM

SECTION F
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

FILL AREA

CUT AREA
989.00
TOP OF ROOF 3
1001.67

TOP OF PLATE
997.00

FINISH FLOOR
989.00 8' 2'-9" 12'-8"
BEDROOM CLOSET 8' CL
TOP OF ROOF 1
999.75 1'-11"

CRAWL SPACE

ATTIC SPACE
TOP OF ROOF 2
1000.17'
TOP OF ROOF 3
1001.67

FINISH FLOOR
989.00'

TOP OF PLATE
997.00' 8' 3'-2" 1'-5" 12'-8"

SECTION E
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8' CL CLOSET

BATH BEDROOM

KITCHEN PROPERTY LINE(E) ADJACENT
HOUSE
LOT 16
(E) KEYSTONE
RET. WALL
(N) RET. WALL

UPPER FLOOR
WINDOW

LOWER FLOOR

SLIDING DOOR
· (P) GUEST HOUSE - SECTION E
· (P) GUEST HOUSE - SECTION F
A-13.1
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS:BENDA -SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

9.d
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) · RENDER VIEWS
A-14
J C

ENGINEERING
848 BURNS CT.

PACIFICA, CA 94044
(650) 355 0615
FAX (650) 355 8965

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
REMARKS: BENDA-SPENKER RESIDENCE BAY VIEW RD- CALERA TERRACE PACIFICA, CA 94044 APN: 022-062-550 Sheet:

Checked by:

Drawn by:

JC
project no sheet no.
20180525
06 / 30 / 26
JAV IER M. CHAVAR
IA

REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL ENGINE
R

C I V I L

STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

BAYVIEW RD EXISTING VIEW

BAYVIEW RD PROPOSED VIEW

ROCKAWAY EXISTING VIEW

ROCKAWAY PROPOSED VIEW

ENTRY FROM BAYVIEW RD EXISTING VIEW

ENTRY FROM BAYVIEW RD PROPOSED VIEW

9.d
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Attachment D -Project Plans-Bay View (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

SUIIMIT DNGINDERING
. House and Vacant Lot lnsoection
. Soils Reports
. Surveying, Parcel Maps, Subdivisions
. Storm Drain Design
. Hazardous Waste Studies
Javier Chavarria, RCE

JC ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTS
225 Rockaway Beech Avenue, Suite 400
Pacifica, CA 94044
March 9th, 20II
RE: Geotechnical Report for the Proposed Residence at
Parce1 55, Bay View Road, Pacifica' California.

Dear Mr. Chavarria i
The attached geoLechnical report is based on a detailed engineering study by the undersigned of the above properEy, where a new single family residence is planned in Lhe future.

We concfude that from a geotechnical standpoint, the land is suitable for the proposed construction, provided that our recommendations are implemented and good building practices are followed.

Special concerns for this site include the potential hazards of ,L.prg., seismic shock and differential foundation movement.

Therefore, we ask that this report be carefully studied and taken into account for Lhe engineering design which is to fol-l-ow.

Upon request, we will review foundation plans, and inspect earthwork construction and foundation install-ation on a regular basis while the work is performed. We will- also discuss construction procedures, and field changes if needed in a Final Report.
n'l ^^aa F^^'1 t- .Hredbe reer -ure€ tO COntaCt uS at anytime in the future if there are questions about this report, or we may be of further service. 5855 Castle Drive
OaXtand, CA94611
Tel: (510) s31-665s
Fax:(510) 482-58/'g
Q i nnoral rr v+..vv3v+J t

9.e
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

GEOTECIINICAL IWESTIGATION
FOR

THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT
PARCEI, 55, BAY VIEW ROAD
PAEIFIEA. EA 94044
FOR
,fAVIER CHAVARRIA, RCE
.JC ENGINEERING. ARCHITECTS
225 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE. SUITE 4OO
PACIFICA, CA 94044
SI]MMIT ENGINEERING
5855 CASTLE DRIVE
OAKITAIiID, CAITIFORNIA 946LL
I{ARCH 9, ZOIL

9.e
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

TABIJE OF CONTENTS
Report Summary ii
Introduction ...... 1
Proposed Construction
Qanna 1 DUUPg
Site Topography and Vegetation.. lGanl nrrrr 1
Field Investigation 2
Laboratory Testing... 3
Soil- s 3
Sei sm'i r:i f rz. 3
Concl-usions.. ......5
Recommendations 5
A. Site Preparatj-on and Grading ...... 5
B. Drainage ...... 7
C. Drilled Pier Foundat.ion. . . 8
D. Shallow Foundations.. ...10
E. Concrete Slabs on Grade ......11
F. Pavement ......L2
G. Lateral Pressures.... ...12
H. Lateral Load Resistance... ...I4
Limitations.. ......14
References. ......1-5
Annend'i x .....17
E'i arrrae -1 R
Boring Logrs .....26

9.e
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) REPORT SI'MI4ARY
The presenL geotechnical study can be summarized as foffows :
- The subject siLe is a vacant parcel of land where a new/ twostorey, singl-e-family residence is proposed in the fut.ure. A hammer-head turnaround for fire trucks will also be buift. - The surface d.eposits consist of Franciscan Greenstone (fg) f,rrufuufrry inr-lrrdincr l'ra--1Li uqbct-LLJ-Ur ^ --^r VLJfLArr. ^^.^ic rocks. - Ground waLer was not found during driIIing.
- The nearest acLive fau]E is the San Andreas Fault (T1pe A, the nearest fault trace is 2.7 miles NE of the site) .
- The proposed structure should have all down-spouts collected and extended to discharge in a properly prepared drainage dissipation area.
- The proposed house will rest on drilled piers to be embedded in Hard, weathered clay/gravel conglomerate.
t- t9.e
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

INTRODUCTION
This report. compiles the results of an invest.igation of the soif and geologic condit.ions of a vacant parcel located on Bay View Road in the city of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. The parcel's access is by an easement located between Lhe houses on 125 and 171 Bay View Road. The parcel has 21,853 square feet (0.50 acres) of surface area (Figures 1 and 3).

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The current owner plans to build a new a two-storey, single family residence. The proposed house will rest on drilled piers to be embedded in Hard, weathered clay/gravel conglomeraLe. Grading will al-so include building the access road and fire Lruck turnaround, the new foundation, retaining walls, and to provide drainage and runoff disposal.

SCOPE
The scope of this investiqation included:

A geologic reconnaissance of the surrounding area;
A rewiew of pertinent geologic maps and reports
relevant to the site;
The drilling of three soil borings, and col-Iecting
representative soil samples,' and

4. The testing of subsurface materials to determine
representative index properties and the correlation of
dril1ing resistance with shear strength.

SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION
The site has an irregular polygonal shape. The access road will reach the parcel in the middle portion. This will al-fow a down-slope configuration of the proposed structure. The average slope grade of the building site is 56% (1.79H:1.00V). Site vegretaLion consists of thick, natiwe brushes and some invasive bush species (Figs 1 and 3) .

GEOLOGY
Geologic maps covering the area (Ref. I, Figure 2A) indicate that the parcel l-ies within Franciscan GreensEone (fg) consisting of basaltic, wofcanic rocks incl-udingi f1ows, pillow lavas, breccias, and tuffs ln different proportions; generally un-bedded, but sometimes in9.e Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) distinctly bedded. Commonly fractured at cl-ose spacing or moderate spacing. where fresh, the rocks are gray to gray-green rn col-or. where fractures are closely spaced, fresh rocks are firm to hard.

Where fractures are moderately spaced, fresh rocks are hard. Weathering commonly reaches 10 to 30 feet, and sometimes to 50 feet. Where weathered rocks are orange-brown or other shades of red and brown.

Where fractures are closely spaced, weathered rocks are firm to soft.

Where fractures are moderately spaced, weathered rocks are firm to hard. This unit includes some chert and limestone to small to be mrnnad
Awai]abl-e l-and stability maps (Ref . 2b, Figure 28) show the site to be moderately to highly sensitive to seismic landsl_ides. The official- San MaLeo County map of geotechnical hazards (Ref. 3, Figure 2c) show the subject site in Zone 5 with indications of 'poor to good' slope stability, 'poor to good' earthquake stability, and ,poor to g:ood' foundation conditions.

SeismiciLy maps (Figure 2D) show the site located 2.7 miles (4.3 Km) SW of the well-known, seismically-active san Andreas Fault. The seismically-act.iwe, NW-trendingr San Gregorio/Seal Cove Faul-t is mapped 4 miles (5 Km) SW of the site. Alt.hough consi-d.ered inactive, a number of geologic faults are mapped in the San Francisco peninsula.

Such are the Pil-arcitos and San Mateo Faults, erc.

There is also a number of active faults on the East Bay. The Hayward and Cal-averas Faults are located 20 miles (32 xm) NE, and 29 mires ENE of the site, respectively; the Concord Faul-t. is located 33 mil-es NNE of the site (Figure 2D).

FIELD I}ryESTIGATION
Field investigation consisted of a detailed site inspeccion and subsurface exploration. During the detailed site inspection on March 7, 20Lr, the site topography and features were examined. No obvious indications of soil instability were noLiced in the proposed building site. The adjacent residences appeared in sound condition. subsurface exploration, performed on March 7, 20rr, consisted of drilling three soil borings at the Locations shown in Figure 3. The borings were drilled by using a portable, power drilling rig (Minuteman) equipped with a 3-inch solid auger. The borings were ended in Hard, native, gravelly clay conglomerate. Boring rogs and details regarding field and laboratory invest.igations are included in the attached Appendix.

9.e
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

LABORATORY TESTING
Samples of materials from the spoon samplers were collected for standard faboratory analyses Lo determine representative soil properties.

Pl-asticity tests were performed as they are usefuf for soil cl-assification and property correlation.

SOILS
The B-1, B-2, and B-3 exploratory borings eneountered a thin layer of gravelly clay colluvium underlain by weathered, gravelly clay conglomerate which becomes harder with depth.

For engineering purposes, the foll-owing layers will be considered:
0-2 feet, black silty c1ay, fill and topsoil, its resistance will be disregarded for design purposes (Creep Depth);
2-6 feet, Stiff to Hard, gravelly clay and weathered gravelly clay nnna] nmaraf a .
reev,
>6 feet, weathered, Hard, gravelly clay conglomerate;
Groundwater was not found in any of the borings during drilling.

Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are presented on the boring logs in the Appendix. The attached boring 'r ^-d --^ r^'r aLed ruYD, qrru !Erq information show subsurface conditions at the approximate locations shown on the Site Pl-an in Figure 3.

It should be noted that at the building site, shallow soils are clayey in nature with LL = 46eo, Pl = 20% (classified CL) , have Moderate plasticity, and probably a moderate expansion potential- See Lhe fol-lowing table of commonly used correl-aLions between PI wafues and expansion potential :

PI (%) Expansion Potential-
< t2 Nil
13-15 Low
L6-25 Moderate
26-35 High
> 35 Very High

SEISMICITY
The toL is located in the San Francisco Bay Area which is one of t.he most seismically-active region of the United States. The nearest actiwe fau1t and also the Iikely producer of the controlling seismic event is the San Andreas Fault which is mapped 2.7 miles (4 Km) NE of the site. The seismically-active San Gregorio/Seal Cowe Fault is

9.e
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) mapped 4 mil_es (6 Km) SW from the site. Although considered inacLive, a number of geologic faults are mapped nearby in the peninsula. such are the pilarcitos and San Mateo Faurts, etc.

There is al-so a number of active faults on the East Bay. The Hayrrard and Cal-averas Faults are l-ocated 20 miles (lZ Km) NE and 29 miles ENE of the site, respectively. The Concord Fault is ]ocated 33 mil-es NNE of the site (Figure 2D) .

Al-l- of these faults are currently exhibiting creep movements and micro-seismic activity, and are capable of generat.ing major earthquakes with t.he capacity for widespread d.amage to both man-made and natural structures. Major Bay Area earthquakes last occurred on the Hayward, San Andreas and Calaveras FauLts in the year 1858, 1989 and 1861, respectively. Other small faults are mapped in the immediate area, although none are associated with any seismic activitrz or considered active.

Ar-Lrrougrt n'1 fL^,,-1^ ..its -.:^ r-E. rs not yet possible to accurately predict when and where an earthquake will occur on the basis of currenL technology, it is reasonabl-e to assume that the proposed structure will be subjected during their useful tife to at least one moderate to severe earth- quake. During such an earthguake, the danger from faul-t offset thru the site is remote, but strong shaking of the site wi]I IikeIy occur.

Soil liquefaction is not consid.ered a hazard at the site, but soil slumping or surface sloughing could occur on sloping ground due to the strong shaking of a major seismic event, particularly if soils are saLuraLed. However, foundations built on competent strata, dlthough may suffer some damage, shou1d perform satisfactorily during a strong event. In addition, wood-framed buildings are generally flex- ible enough to sustain some seismic deformations with minor or moderate structural damage. An effective surface drainage will cont.ribute to maintaining higher shear strength, and hence stable slopes.

Additional 2010 Cafifornia Buildinq Code (CBC) Seismic Paramecers.

The CBC requires for seismic design the determination of the mapped spectral accel-eration values for short period (Ss) and for 1 second. (sr) (from Figure 1613.5(3), Ref. 13). rn our presenr case, the exrsting soil profile may be assimilated to a C site cl-ass of soil L).pe, i.e. 'Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock' (Table ]-613,5.2, Ref . 13). other CBC seismic coefficients are calculated as follows :

Site coordinates 37 .504735 deg N, L22.48953G deg W (NAD27) and hence, Ss = a.847, Fa
\ t
-
lt v <9 kat
-
v.JJrl

1.0, Sms = t.847, Sds = L.23L

1.3, Sm1 = 1.22L, Sd1 = 0 .814

9.e
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) The proposed building will have a II occupancy category. the building will have a D seismic design category.

Therefore,

CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field and office studies, it is our opinion that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is suitabl-e for the proposed residence and retaining walls, provided t,hat Ehe recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed addition structure.

Because of soil- characteristics, we recommend that the foundation for rL^ *-^^^-^.1 l^, urrE r/lvyvDsu rrouso consist of a drilled pier and grade beam sysLem embedded in Hard, weathered, clay conglomerate. The new retaining waI1 should be supported on a p:-er/fooLing combination.

The pier foundation must be designed and built to provide adequate vertical and horizontal restraint. The verticaf restraint will be prowided by a combination of skin-friction and end-bearing action of pi"t" penelrating the Hard conglomerate. The horizontal restraint wiII also be provided by passive resistance of Hard layers.

Ground shaking will be the major cause of earthquake damage. The subject dwelling wilI consist of a wood-framed, two-storey building supported by a relatively rigid system resting or embedded in competent soil strata.

The controlling seismic event will be produced by the San Andreas Fault, whose maximum credible Peninsula Branch Event would have a M7.1 on the Richter Sca1e. The site may be wulnerable to seismically triggered landslides. Further, the building period for a 2- storey sLructure may faI1 within range of maximum spectral values, and therefore, Lhe structure may be subjecu to high base skrear and high shear stresses. Seismic CBC (2010) spectraf values for design are shown in the previous SEISMICITY Section.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for the successfuf completion and maintenance of the project. Because the recommendations are partly general and partly specific t.o certain items of concern identified above, recommendation implementation should be discussed wit.h an experienced Soil-s Engineer. A Soils Engineer must be retained to:
- Review the foundation, grading, and drainage plans
prior to construction.

9.e
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Update this report if necessary because of observed
changies or delays.

Inspect the excavation operations, particularly the
drilling of pier boreholes; and the instaflation of
surface drains and sub-drains.
- Prepare a Final Soils Engineer's Report that indicates whether construetion was done according to expected
soil-s characteristics, or new features were encountered which reguired special engineering considerations.

We request to be allowed to provide these additional engineering services so that there will be no question about interpreting our recommendations which are based on our findings and conclusions.

A. Site Preparation and Gradinq
The area of t.he proposed addition should be cleared and stripped so sufficient dept.h to remove any obstructions, debris, and all surface vegetation. These material-s should be removed from the site. If any ^L-!-,,^F..i ^-^ I LrrJbL!LrL.ururrD rsuch as tree root systems) are removed below the planned finished grades, the resulting holes must be backfilled with approved materiafs that are compacted to the reguirements given bel-ow.

Mature, native brush should be considered grenerally as contributors to slope stability and erosion protection. Not more than necessary native brush should be removed for construction. Any proposed landscape should also include fire-resistant, native trees and bushes. n,.^ r^ uuE uv ^^.i'l Dvrr ^]y-asLicity, on siLe materials are not recommended for use as fill or backfill materials. Any imported fill used at the site should be a non-expansive soil wit.h a plasticity index of 12 or less. A11 f ilt and backf il-l material-s placed at the site must not contain rocks or lumps greater than 5 inckres in their greatest d.imension, with not more than l-5 % larger than 2 .5 inches.

A11 sub-grade surfaces that will receive fill-, should be scarified to a depth of 5 inches, moisture-conditioned wet of optimum, and compacted to Lhe requiremenLs given below. A11 structural fill and backfill material-s placed at the site shoul-d be compacted to aL least 902 rel-ative compaction by mechanical means only, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D1551-10.

In addition, structural fil1s (including waI1 backfills) equal or greater than 4 feet in thickness should be compacted to at least 95eo relative comoaction over their futl depth. AI1 new fills should be

9.e
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) keyed into compact materials and compacLed in lift.s not exceeding B inches i-n un-comoacted t.hickness.

We recommend that any new cut slopes, and any slopes disturbed by the construction operations be heavily planted Lo minimize sloughing and erosion (Ref. 15) . A1I finished grades should slope at least 2% in such a manner thaL surface water will not run over exposed slopes or col-l-ect against obstructions. For other grading details, the reader is referred to the CBC (Ref. 15).

B. Drainaqe
Particul-ar attention must be given to both surface and subsurface drainage at this site. Even low-plasticity soils may be affected by drying:-and-wett.ing cycles, and must be protected by a careful-l-y planned drainage system to avoid water percolation near the foundations.

In addition, there is always the risk of a slide occurring in sloping terrain, and a good drainage plan wiII decrease such risk.

No concentrated water should be allowed to run over any prepared s1ope. Rough and finish grading should be planned to prevent any ponding of waLer on the surface, except that a safe sediment pond may be necessary if grading is done during the winter.

Either 3- or 4-inch, rigiid, perforated pipe with solid clean-ouLs shoul-d be placed behind retaining wa1ls. Perforated pipes should be surrounded with at leasL one cubic foot per linear foot of freedraining material consisting preferably of cl-ean, uniform, 1- Lo 2- inch gravel or drain rock.

Slope runoff should be intercepted behind retaining wa1l-s by installing peripheral swales that empty into small- catch basins for proper disposal. Drainage must not be allowed to colfect and pond anywhere on the siEe. Crawl spaces beneaEh floors can coflect seepage if t.he rough interior grade is lower than the finisLr grade around th.e outside. Finished ground surfaces must be sloped at l-east 2% away from foundation wa1ls for positive drainage. Do not introduce surface runoff into perforated sub-drains (See Figures 4 and 5).

Roof runoff shoul-d also be col-l-ected and directed away from foundations. Do not allow down-spouts to deposit runoff where it. can saturate foundation soiI. A1I down-spouls should be connected by solid pipe and al-Iow to discharge, ideally, onto paved surfaces or into city storm drains. If this is not possible/ storm runoff should be dissipated on site using a dissipation area shown in Figure 4A.

Notice that 5-inch Lo l-2-inch boulders or rock fragments may be used for rip-rap. Notice also that the 4-inch dissipation 'T' pipe must

9.e
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) be built perfectly l-evel for gentle water dissipation downslope.

Pressure treated wood, railroad ties, etc. may be used to maintain a perfectly horizontal 'T' pipe.

Installation and operation of automatic sprinkler systems must be carried out careful-ly so as not produce excessive amounLs of water.

Further, irrigation either manual or automatic should be kept to a minimum. Landscaping should consist of drought and fire resistant enaai oe nf |- raaa anrl Jrrrahaa
-- -=D AIIU UUDIIED.

Proper house maintenance should include annual flushing with a garden hose of all sub-drains, catch basins and down-spout piping. If any pipes become clogged, t.hey should be cleared so that hydrostatic water pressures do not lessen the shear strengLh of the soi1s. Likewise, ground surfaces should be maintained to promote good drainage and to prevent erosion and foundation soil saturation.

C. Drilled Pier Foundations
Dri11ed, friction piers must be designed according to the parameters given below. Minimum pier diameter shoul-d be L6 inches. Piers should penetraLe the Hard, weathered conglomerate with a minimum pier length (measured from the original ground elevation) of 10 feet for the main structure and 8 feet for secondary struetures (driveway retaining walIs etc.). Final- pier depths to be decided in the field by Soils Engrineer. The following summary table may be used for pier design :

Table 1 - SoiI Parameters for Foundation Design
T-)ani- h 1€{- )
svverr \!e/
Soil
Charact.

Skin Frct Pull-out
(Psf ) Res. (psf )
Pass Res Bear]-ngi
/nnf\ /*\ Droc /lrcf) r!veg
Fi1l and TonsoilTli craaard
(Creep Depth)
Sti-ff to
Hard Weathrd
Conglomerate 400 200
4+
Hard,
Weathered
Conglomerate
means applied to
600 300
where (*) 1.5 pier diameters.
fUU

9.e
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) However, when embedded in Hard, gravelly conglomerate, and provided t.hat pier boreholes will be clean from all debris, piers may be designed to account for the end-bearing effect. In these cases, the a1lowable end-bearing pressure will be 4 kips per square foot, plus 10% per foot of penetration starting from 5-foot depths, to a maximum of 12 ksf for dead plus live Ioad, with a one-third increase for al-lloads including wind or seismic. The allowable bearing pressure, ed, inside the Hard gravelly conglomeraLe is given by :
and
qa = 4 ( 1 + 0.1 ( L - 6 ) ) ksf
L = pier length (ft) below original ground
If the end-bearing effects are added, the total pile capacity will be cal-culated as follows :

Pier capacity = Shaft resistance + Tip resistance / 3
The following pier capacities have been calculated for foundation design. For given pier spacings, and hence pier foads, pier lengths may be obtained from Table 2 in order to minimize foundation costs :

Table 2 - vertical- Pier Capacities in kips (1 kip = 1,000 lbs) D
( in)
L(fr)
810]-2141518
L4 r_9 24 30 3s 40
15 22 28 34 40 46
where :

D = Pier Diameter in inches
L = Pier length (ft) below original ground
Creep Pressures on Pi-ers
Pier creep earth pressures are assumed to act thru the soil depth with creep potential (Creep Depth), which in this case is esLimated to be at an average depLh of 2 feet from the original ground.

Creep pressures will be accounted for by designing piers to resist a v^^F-s^.r'l
--
'1 lcuLarryurq! - -oteraf pressure diagram of stress equal to the creep depth t.imes 200 pcf -efw, i.e., creep stress = 2 x 300= 500 psf in this case, appli-ed 1 foot below ground.

I2
r6

9.e
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Creep pressures will be applied to one pier diameter. Passive soil resj-stance, existing only below the Creep Dept.h of 2 feet on average, will be applied to 1.5 diameters and is given on Tabl-e 1 above and in Section H be1ow.

Piers in Pl-astic Cl-ay
Because piers are to be drilled through native, plastic c1ay, we recommend that the grade beams be designed to resist a 1,500 psf uplift pressure.

Pier Construction
Piers might not be installed deeply or firmly enough for fixity at their bottoms in order to act as vertica1 cantilever beams. Depths to fixity wou1d depend on the lengt.h of embedment into passively acting soil-. However, if a minimum embedment of 8 feet is provided, fixedend effects aL pier bottoms may be assumed for structural- design.

AlI piers must be tied together with tie beams or grade beams that extend up and down the slope between the piers as wel-f as across the slope between the piers. The spacing of the piers should be determined by the Structural Engineer, but shou]d not be closer than five pier diameters. Pier foundations become more efficient when usinq fewer, widelw spaced, larqer piers.

AII pier holes shoul-d be dry and reasonably free of l-oose cuttings and fall-ing debris prior to instal-ling reinforcing steel and placing concrete. Some of the pier holes may encounter different soil conditions that assumed thru their design depthsi such piers will be evaluated on an individual basis at the time of construction.

In addition, care must be taken during the pier hole drilling operation to werify that pier holes reach the underlying dense materials, and that boufders or locally unconfined rock ouEcrops are avoided.

Pier borehofes should not be left un-poured over 24 hours and by no means over 48 hours. If water is encountered in any of the pier excavations, pumping may be required to remove Lhe mud from the hofes. If open boreLroles are caving-in, a drill--and-pour teckrnique may have to be implemented.

D. Sha]l-ow Foundations
Footings should only be used as a supplement t.o drilled piers for retaininq wal1s. Retaining walls may be designed using piers for wertical and horizontal (passive) foads supplemented by short footings of, say, 2 Lo 4 feet to provide a rigid bending joint at the base of the wal-l-. The footing trench bottoms should be thoroughly 10 9.e
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) compacted. The footings may be designed for maximum arlowable bearing pressures as follows :

Footinq Depth (ft) Alfowabfe Pressure (psf)

3.0 4.0
> 5.0
1, 500
2,000
2 ,500
3,000
Retaining walls should be waterproofed, sub-drained with perforat.ed pipes, and densely backfilled prior to framing. Footings may be designed for the al1owable bearing pressures shown above, for dead plus li-ve loads, with a one-third increase for al-l- loads including wind and seismic. The allowab1e bearing pressures are net values; therefore, ttre weight of the footings can be neglected for design purposes. A11 foundation bearings must be reasonably dry and free of cuLLings or fall-ing debris prior t.o installing steel bars and pouring UUIIU! ^^6 ^e^F C LC ^ .

E. Concrete Slabs on Grade
Framed wood flooring is preferable for the living areas of buildings.

However, where slabs are to be used, the following is recommended :

A minimum of 4 inches of crushed rock should be used between compacted sub-grade and concrete sl-abs. Any over-excavated sub-grade should be filled with densely compacted crushed rock or other nonexpansive fill material. A plastic membrane under the slab may be used as l-ocal vapor barrier. The membrane should be placed over 2 inches of sand over the crushed rock. Post-tensioned slabs may not need vapor barriers if the concrete is permanently in compression.

Prior to pJ-acing sIabs, sub-grades may be pre-swelled by flooding for a few days prior to placement of vapor barriers or concrete, partir:ularlrz 'if fhe slab is structurallv connected to the foundation.

Alternatively, the top 12 inches of soil may be replaced by a compacted, non-plastic, sub-base, imporL fill materlal.

Concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced, preferabl rz wi th har reinforcement. Wire mesh is acceptabl-e if is carefu11y Lentered in the slabs. Exterior slabs, garage, carport s1abs, and driveways should be free-floating and separate from foundations.

Weakened-p1ane expansion joints should be made in exposed, nonstructural slabs at about. 10-foot intervals. Reinforcinq should be continuous through expansion joints.
tL

9.e
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Concrete walks should be reinforced concrete over sand or gravel. If truck traffic passes over concrete wa1ks, they should be 5-inch reinforced sl-abs over 5 inches of rock. Similar concrete pads should be placed wherever a debris box or a trailer storage is ant.icipat.ed.

F. Pavement
The customary driveway section consists of a 4-inch, reinforcedconcrete slab as described above, or a 2-inch cover of plant-mixed asphalt. (a thicker "engineered" R-Value design can be prepared upon requesL). Either pavement should be placed over at least 4 inches of CalTrans Class II Aggregate Base rock.

Instal-} pawement according to the CalTrans Standard Specifications, Sections t6, L9,26, and 39. Compact the sub-grade to 95? relative compaction (ASTM D1557) aL a moisLure content of 2% over optimum moisLure, and tkren rock tack, and pave immediately to keep the soil from drying and subjecL to swell heave the following winter. Base rock should be Cal-Trans Class II aggregate, asphalt should be plantmixed Type B. Base rock should also be compacted to 95% and Lacked.

Asphalt shoul-d be sealed after paving.

G . Lateral- Pres sures
Partiall-y buried foundations and retaining walIs must be designed to resist active lateral soil pressures. Active pressures behind backdrained reLaining walIs and partially buried foundations may be taken as follows:

Wall Type
Unrestrained, Slope < 4:L
Unrestrained, Slope < 3:1
TTnroql- rainod Q'l nne
- e!s+rrvv/ ).1
Restrained
Active Pressure (pcf-efw) *
35 40
qo
Add an additional uniform fateral
pressure of 8 x H (psf), where H =
height of backfill above retaining
waI1 foundation in feet.
(*) Pounds per cubic foot-equivalent fluid weight
A 50% pressure increase should be used for shoring design.

For unrestrained wal-Is, add an addit.iona1 uniform pressure equal to one-third the maximum surcharge foad applied to the wall backfill.

For restrained walls this additional uniform design pressure should be one-half the maximum surcharqe.

9.e
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) - Seismic pressures will be accounted by adding a uniform pressure = 8 x H psf, where H = height in feet of retaining wall. (Soil parameters may be increase by l/3 for rapid dynamic loading).

The above pressures assume that sufficient drainage will be provided behind the wall-s to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface and subsurface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by a sub-drain system consisting of either 3- or 4- inch diameter perforated pipes bedded in free-draining material. The free-draining material should consist of clean, uniform, 1- Lo 2-inch qravel- or crushed rock.

Retaining walIs behind non-Iiving spaces shoul-d have a walf drainage sysLem incfuding conventional drainage bfanket material (suckr as Miradrain) , and free-draining material. The free-draining material shoul-d be wrapped with a slmthetic filter fabric forming a "drainage burrito'r, and placed behind the wafl with aE least 1 foot of t.hickness and should extend to within 2 feet of finished grade.

The perforated sub-drain pipes should be connected to a system of closed pipes that leads to the city storm drainage system if possible, or that. dischargies in the paved street gutter. Compaction of backfill shoul-d be conducted in such a way that will- not damage the wall (See SecLion A for backfill placement and compaction) . The upper 1 foot of backfill shoufd consist of compacted on-site or imported clayey materials (Figure 5).

Construction equipment surcharges should also be anticipated in de- ^..: --^ ^--] Dr'.,rr, q*s tstr-^ urrs construction specifications should provide for adeguate concrete curing time before allowing the backfilt to be compacted.

Sliding friction and passive resistance should be taken as discussed in Section H below. On hillsides we recommend spudding wal1 footings with reinforced concrete piers designed to take bending stresses.

Besides being provided with proper sub-drains, we recommend that al-lretaining walls behind living spaces be thoroughly water-proofed, preferably by hot-mopping, or better yet, with sealing synthetic membranes such as HLM5000, PermaSeal, Bituthene, Miradrj- or equivalent.

Lined surface swales shoutd be provided behind any retaining walls having an exposed sloping surface draining Lowards them. The swales/ that wil-I collect runoff water from the slopes, shoul-d be sloped to drain to suitable discharge facilities. The top of the walls shoufd extend at least 5 inches above the swale in order to retain minor erosion or sloughing materials.
13 9.e
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) The walfs must. be supported on pier/footing foundations, that are designed in accordance with the recommendations presented previously under SecLions C, "Drilled Piersrr and D, "Sha1]ow Foundations".

LaLeral load resistance can be developed in accordance with the recommendations presented below.

H. Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads on footings resting on Hard conglomerate may be resisted by friction with a friction coefficienE of 0.4.

Lateral Ioads on piers may be resisted by passive pressures acting against the sides of the piers or keyways. Eguivafent passive pressures as shown on Table I :

Between 0 and 2 feeL, use 0 Pcf-efw,'
Between 2 and 5 feet, use 350 Pcf-efw;
below 6 feet, use 500 Pcf-efw Lo a
max. vafue of 8,000 psf.

Passive resistance of drilled piers will be calculated by applying passive stresses on 1.5 pier diameters.

I,IMITATIONS
The recommend.ations presented herein are based on the soil condiLions revealed by our Lest borings and laboratory procedures according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties eiLher expressed or impl ied.

IL musL be understood that for this report to be vafid, the owner should ensure that necessary steps are taken to carry out the recommendations of the report in the field. Any added risk incurred by the choice of al-ternative construction meEhods which depart from our recommendations wiII be borne by the owner. Further, this report must not be construed as any guarantee or insurance agiainst any L)pe of soil- f ailure.

The recommend.ations in this report are general in nature and are subject to adoption or revision as the construction circumstances warrant. We shoul-d, be notified for supplemental- recommendations should unusual situations be encountered during construction. We may be consulLed for supplemental ad.vice, or Lo provi-de assistance in interpreting our findings and recommendations, or to inspect various aspects of const,ruction.
t4

9.e
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) Our recommendations are walid as of the present time. However, future conditions may change conditions due to legislation, improvement of engineering knowledge, natural process, or manrs works. Therefore, this report is subject to review and its validity may decrease with the passage of time.

Finally, careful desigrn and construction cannot guarantee that damage will not occur if a disaster strikes. Disaster may strike, for instance, in the form of either a large, destructive landslide, or a ^.1 Dayrrr!ruq'L, -*.i€.i^-.^F rr€d.fb1z earthquake, The owner afone undertakes such risk, and therefore, the owner should obtain home insurance if available against earthquake and landslide damage.

REFERENCES

1. USGS (Brabb and Pampeyan) , L972, Preliminary Geologic Map of San Mateo Countv. Miscell-aneous Fie1d Studies Ma'o MF-328. 2a. USGS (Brabb and Pampeyan) , 1972, Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-344.
2b. USGS (Wieczorek, et aI), 1985, Map Showing Slope Stability During Eart.hquakes in San Mateo County, Cal-ifornia.

3. Of f icial Map County of San Mateo, California (1,9'76) ,
Geotechnical- Hazard Slmthesis Map, Leighton & Associates Geotechnical Engineers and the San Mateo CounLy Planning Department.

4. State of California, L982, Revised Official Map, Special Studies Zone.

5. USGS (Stover, Reagor, Baldwin, Brewer) , 1990, Prefiminary fsoseismal map for the Santa Cruz (Loma Prieta) California Earthquake of 10-l-8-89, Open FiIe Report 90-l-8.

6. USGS (Youd and Hoose) , L978, Location Map of Ground Failures in t.he San Francisco Bay Counties Region, PP 993.

7. Caf ifornia Division of Mines & Geology (Hart), t975, Faul-E Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42.

8. USGS (Borcherdt) , 1975, Studies for Seismic Zonat.ion of the San Francisco Bay Region, Professional- Paper 94I-A.
rK

9.e
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9. USGS (Herd) , L979, Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region, Circ. 807, p. 10.

10. Seed & Idriss , L982, Ground Motions and SoiI Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute.

11. U.S. SoiI Conservation Service, 1981, SoiI Survey of San Mateo Countv.

12. USGS (Rantz) , t97t, Mean Annual Precipitation Data for the San Francisco Bay Region, BDC 32.

13. Amerj-can Society for Testing Materials, Annual Standards.

L4. Architectural Plans and Topographic Survey by JC Engineering, January, 201L.

15. California Building Code, 20:.0 Edition.

16. ABAG, L995, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment, Control Measures.

9.e
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

APPENDTX
S UIIIIIT EIIIGITTEEIi INTG

9.e
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) ..,/ i/ //
)t9 y'o\* t

WASTE WATER I
TRaTMENT
Lil.,ltA MAI-I q"
? SANCHA fuOBE
! H/SrcF/C SIE
PEDftC
,(s ro,trt
I
\/
Refr AAA San Mateo co. Map
q4,\4t€
FIGUREl-SITELOCATTON
RocKAwAy I

BEACH I
- r,.*9Q---.
p lt7 .o$1

SUIIITIT EIVGINEERING

9.e
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) #$
ril
h
"ir"'
t
r,,-
T'rt
)?*r.
q,,
:
"d-
'
q,
$x
t
Ref. : USGS
L
Scale r I =
(Brabb and pampeyan), L7TZ
1 mite
FTGURE 2A - REGIONAL GEOI,OGY
$il j
S UMIT IT EI[G[ IlIEEII T IWC

9.e
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

MORI POINT
Ref. San Mateo County Official Map
of Geologic Hazards (1973)
tr I
ScalerlE2'OOO
ll
FTGURE 2C - REGIONAL LAND STABTLTTY
+J
.4
rdiiQ_/
\
:I
t'3y,
?,t
q
'11;
SUPTFTIT ENGI I1IEE RI FIG

9.e
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) l
I
I
3Al
I
I
I
I
I
nCn
I
CA llt tt,', t--j* I
l/ i'l I f:. +"6W
$TAT[ I
Iraci
I
I
I
1 Mr:ri Poi
l
I
f
I
)
\
)
PA{TK
i..
i
l
I
l
I
I
78 SHAT?P
Point $an P
Devils
I
I
I
ro
n
)
i€'
44 198 5
2 , OOO'
?
I
i
I
I
s,

FTGURE ZB - REGIONAL LAND STABTLITY

SETSMIC SLOPE STABTLTTY
SUIIIIIT ENGIIUEEII.ING

9.e
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) f

6.5 "'.1"
'. lP
E
71 6.4*
.,
NOVATO

AN RAFAEL
tO

1..$'1conu
..o
\.c- ..?
irr
o
)
o
o

6. Or
6 v
\
\
a
SAN MA

ROJECT SITE
$oo-t-
?W
HAYwARD \.,
l\.. n* \i
a
I
I
a

6.7 ( 1e76 )
FIGLJRE 2D - AcTIvE FAULT zoNE6
Ref, r Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology (*) t Hose Probable Magnltude or Maxl-mum Credlble Earthquake
SUffI}TTT NNGINTEErITNG

9.e
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) -,t\\fr
Ql-gruu
s$-s-"sii- --d
I
LEGEND
#ror.r Boring ts- I I Lo"ation
FIGURE 3 . SITE PLAN AND SOIL BORING

LOCATIONS
S UDTITIT TqNGIISEERINIG

9.e
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) ROO!' DttAlN
tfLD(i. lv^t,t, ------+
II|IN -__rr
coMt,AcTuD t' MIN
CL{YUY SOIL S}T^L

CONNECT ALL DOWNSPOUTS
AND CATCH tsASINS TO

SOUD PIPE

BUILDING DRATN (NTS)

FLUSH ANNTIALLY
-4" #fiiDff6 ntcto rtnn
/ ht/ 2z MIN sLoPE
l4;
t.4
CLEANOUT DETATL (rurS)
FIGURE 4 SUBDRAIN DETAILS

SUMMIT ENGINEERING
C.APPED 'CLEANOUT

9.e
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) f_> 6'
^+r
-.,1-
I
I
t ei'
I
I
rl
tr
I
lfl* a(-t _Al --\> -.....- Storm Dra_i ns -- '1)-

P LAN VTEW
Ferfeet-1y 4" g pvc
Level Perf. Pipe
<lllfimrn errvrvA-A
FJGURE 4A * DISSIPATION AREA
SI]II}IIT ENGINEERING
Bou].ders
Concrete
| .1 l,)'l ?1i'r
or Eguivalent

9.e
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) \
1 I
--4 MTN
4 q
4 a
4,, PERFORATED RIGID PIPE
HOLES DOWNT2% MIN SLOPE
L coMPAcrED lr.\c^r tLL --\ A I
"lI
alltI I
to' rtqa4'Mfu+t',FE:s 4
" | 3/4o vQ 2" ctaAfl.uvif.
" -r--------.t-W-
/ oR R?UND #4VE
L
:'_J
12" MIN
FIGURE 5 RETAINING WALL DETAITS
S{IMMIT ENGINEERING

9.e
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) PROJECT No. 1loL0s DATE: 3/7/zoLL
PROJECT MME: New Residence
LOCATION: Bay View Road, Pacifica CA
DRILUNG METHOD: Minuteman tr/ 3-in Augerrl4o-1b Harnrner HOLE DIAM:3. 5 in DRILUNG CONTRACTOR Acdess Drilling Co. DRILLER: Jose
l.,lATERlAL
, DESCRIPTION
Era b, t?
LI -v
"o-
-2 -
-4 -
-6 -
.8 -
-10-
.-L2-
J4-
-L5 -
*t:
2 4
N.E. . N<rt Encountorrd
[ 3-in Eample
N sPr sempta il
| 6rgb ssmplt

2.5-in
sample
NOTES:
ijlack, silty clayr'lopsoil and
fi11, moist. Soft CL
a:T
Ll \-
color chanqe to oranc{e-brorrin clai;
inoist. Stif f to l'. Si:if f
harder dr j 1ling tn g.ravellY clay'
rock fraqr:lts' sharpr harci.V. Stif
harcler drilling w,/ depth in claY;
c:rave1 conqlomerate. ilard
5'j1ow grind in hard ciravel (v. wea
thereci qreensLone-i ). llard

SUMMIT ENGINEERING
6045 ShirleY Drive
Oakland, CA 9461 I

9.e
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) PROJECTNo 110105 DATE: 3/7/?aLI
PROJECT lllAME: Ne',s Resicj.ence
LOCATION: Bar.. Vier,u Roarl-, Paci-fica GWL DEPTH: N. E. i-'A DRILUNGMETHOD: Minuteman w/ 3-in Augerrl4O-1U Hamrner HOI..E DIAM:3. 5 in DRILUNG CONTRACTOR Acdess DriLting co. DRILLER: Jose

I,IATERIAL
Ee , DESCRIPTION
.oI
..e.2
-16
I
20 2
4 N.E. - Not Encolntcrad
[ 3-ln eampte
N sPr samptc n
t Grab samplr
z. f,-an
sample
r-. T
l'1ed. brorvn, sittir clay, noist,
soine gravel i'I'=4€;,"1ot PI=2O?/"
iied, stif f to gtif f
narcler ctrillitq{, crancre*i:rown cla',''
w,/ abundant gravelr sirarp hard frcl
inent* r l-ic;ir't -.'elloisish*lt:rownr 1.^r€3,*
i:her congio::terater clrillrng harcier
r.il depth. Slow crinc!, iiardSUMMIT ENGINEERING
6045 Shirley Drive
Oakland, CA 94611

9.e
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) PROJECTNo. 1101o5 BORING No. il-:l DATE: 3/1/2orr
PROJECT MI,IE: New Residence
LOCATION: Bay View Road, Pacifica fA GWL DEPTH: N.E.

DRILUNG METHOD: Minuteman w/ 3-in -Auger, f4g-1b Haruner HOLE DIAM:3. 5 in DRILUNG CONIRASTOR Acdess Drillinq Co. DRILLER: Jose
Ee
o
2 4
6 I
o
2 4
6 8
o
2 4
N.E. . Not Encqntorod
[ 3-ln eample
N sPT semptc n
I Grab samptc

2.5-in
sampJ-e
NOTES;
tiedium brown to orange-bro'.Elr c1a',r
ror/ gravel, :rroist. Stiff to V.Stiff
harder drillinq r,;l depth in clay
cor-:c1J-omerate, weathered, abundt
a-re1. Slow srind. Fiard
{_-L
BOfi = 4 feeL

SUMMIT ENGINEERING
6045 Shirley Drive
Oakland, CA 9401 I

9.e
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.e
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.e
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.e
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.e
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

9.e
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Attachment E - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed New Residence and ADU
Bayview Road (APN: 022-062-550)
Pacifica, California
Prepared for:

John Spenker and Robert Benda
July 10, 2024

9.f
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Attachment F - Micheluccci Associates Geotechnical Report-24-07-10 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal) July 10, 2024 via e-mail: [email protected]
Job No. 24-5181 [email protected]

John Spenker and Robert Benda
52 Idlewood Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re: Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed New Residence and ADU
Bayview Road (APN: 022-062-550)
Pacifica, California
Dear Mr. Spenker and Mr. Benda:

As authorized, we have completed a geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed new residence and ADU along with the access driveway and other site improvements that will be constructed on Bayview Road (APN: 022-062-550) in Pacifica, California.

It is our basic conclusion that the project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the accompanying report are incorporated into the final plans and followed during construction.

We are pleased to have been of service to you on this project, and will be available to review our findings with you and your other consultants as needed.

Very truly yours,
MICHELUCCI & ASSOCIATES, INC.

John Petroff
Project Geologist
Joseph Michelucci
Geotechnical Engineer #593
(Expires 3/31/25)
cc: Javier Chavarria ([email protected])
Patrick Drumm ([email protected])

9.f
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Attachment F - Micheluccci Associates Geotechnical Report-24-07-10 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES........................................................................................... 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTS .............................................. 3 SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 4 PREVIOUS REPORTS BY SUMMIT ENGINEERING ................................................... 6 SOIL AND BEDROCK CONDITIONS....................................................................... 7 SITE GEOLOGY.................................................................................................... 9 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 11 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 12 A. Seismic Criteria Per CBC .......................................................................... 12 B. Grading .................................................................................................... 13 C. Foundations ............................................................................................. 14 D. Retaining Walls......................................................................................... 15 E. Slab-on-Grade Construction..................................................................... 17 F. Surface Drainage...................................................................................... 17 G. Subdrainage ..… ...................................................................................... 17 H. Pavements ............................................................................................... 18 I. Review of Plans and Construction Observations...................................... 18 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 18

APPENDIX TO FOLLOW AFTER REPORT

9.f
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Attachment F - Micheluccci Associates Geotechnical Report-24-07-10 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed New Residence and ADU
Bayview Road (APN: 022-062-550)
Pacifica, California

INTRODUCTION
This report covers our investigation of the soil and bedrock conditions that occur at the site of the proposed new residence and ADU located at Bayview Road (APN: 022-062-550) in Pacifica, California (Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1).

An overview of the existing conditions on the property, including the location of test borings performed in conjunction with this study, is included on the attached Existing Site Plan, Figure 2A. The proposed conditions along with our Borings are shown on the attached Proposed Site Plan, Figure 2B.

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the soil and bedrock conditions that occur at the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations and design criteria pertaining to building foundations, site grading, retaining walls, drainage, and other items that relate to the site soil and geologic conditions.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project is to involve construction of a residence and ADU on the hillside property. A private driveway and retaining walls are also planned. Due to the steepness of the site, some of the walls will need to be relatively high. A plan illustrating the locations of the planned improvements is included on the attached Proposed Site Plan, Figure 2B.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our study included:

1. Detailed site inspections by our geotechnical personnel;

2. A review of our files for other projects our firm has completed in the site vicinity;

9.f
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Attachment F - Micheluccci Associates Geotechnical Report-24-07-10 (6153 : Bay View Rd Appeal)

Page 2 ends

Pacifica City CouncilFebruary 23, 2026

Pacifica City Council
February 23, 2026