CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/27/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use, in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 square foot detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).
SUBJECT:
Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use, in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 square foot detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
While staff has made its prior recommendations based on the historical application of the term “development,” the Council may reject or modify staff’s interpretation and may determine that the illegal grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton Drive (the relocation of soil from the existing Covered Arena) does not constitute grading that would be subject to the requirements of the HPD.
Given that it is within Council’s purview to make a different interpretation than staff, a second option has been included in the Recommended Action that would allow the Council to adopt a Resolution determining that the grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton Drive is not “development,” if the Council desires to select that option.
Therefore, staff recommends that Council conduct the public hearing and consider this report and select either option 1 or option 2 below.
1. Adopt a Resolution determining that the grading in an already developed area that was subject to the Notice of Violation is not “development” subject to the requirements of Articles 22 and 22.5 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, and that applicant is thus not required to rezone to Planned Development with a development plan and specific plan in order to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Title 8 of the Municipal Code. This action would be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15268, 15270, 15378(c); or
2. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504 (Class 4-“Minor Alteration to Pacifica City Council 2
April 27, 2026
Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption)
STAFF CONTACT:
James Lin, Senior Planner
(650)738-7341
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
At the Council meeting on February 23, 20261, the City Council considered an Ordinance approving legislative permits for a Rezoning (RZ-211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87- 22), along with a Resolution approving the Specific Plan (SP-180-22), as well as a 400- square-foot detached carport, to facilitate issuance of a retroactive grading permit to correct unpermitted grading identified in the Notice of Violation for illegal grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton Drive.
During the Council deliberations, Council gave direction to City staff to research and analyze the definition of “development” to determine if the retroactive grading permit to correct the illegal grading is the type of “development” intended to be encompassed within and subject to all of the regulatory standards in Article 22 (Planned Development-PD) and Article 22.5 (Hillside Preservation District) of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
This staff report provides the Council with the results of that research and analysis. While Staff made its prior recommendations based on the historical application of the term “development” and a conservative reading of the standards in Articles 22 and 22.5, the Council may modify or reject staff’s interpretation. Specifically, if after review of the legislative history the Council determines that the illegal grading that occurred on the site (the relocation of soil from the existing Covered Arena) does not constitute land disturbance in the form of grading, the Council could determine that the Project is not subject to the requirements of the HPD as set forth in Articles 22 and 22.5 Project Location
The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Cape Breton, as shown in Figure 1, and is comprised of two parcels that total approximately 835,400 square feet, or 19.17 acres (82,400 square feet on APN 022-320-200 and 755,000 square feet on APN 018- 170- 060). The site sits uphill at the top of Cape Breton Drive. The average slope across the entire site is approximately 52.3 percent. The project site was first developed in the 1970s, prior to that the site was undeveloped. Two single-family homes, one covered arena, and six nonhazardous storage buildings are currently existing on the subject site.
The project site has an HPD overlay on both parcels. The City’s Municipal Code requires that a property owner of property within the HPD obtain certain legislative approvals prior to undertaking any “development,” which staff has historically interpreted to include any grading. Any development on a site designated as HPD requires rezoning to Planned 1 City Council Agenda and Staff Report, dated February 23, 2026:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1629&Inline=True Pacifica City Council 3
April 27, 2026
Development (P-D) and approval of a Development Plan as well as a Specific Plan.
Figure One: Project Site
Project Description
The project would retroactively authorize the illegal grading that occurred at the site.
On May 20, 2021, the City issued a Declaration of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate (“NOV”) relating to the removal of sand/soil without a necessary grading permit. The applicant involved had removed sand/soil from the Covered Horse Arena to areas outside of the Covered Arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100 to 300 cubic yards. The Owners of 650 Cape Breton Drive, Iglesia Ni Cristo (“INC”), filed a timely appeal and an administrative hearing was held on August 10, 2021. The applicant argued during the hearing that the relocation of sand/soil was not grading subject to a grading permit. After conducting the hearing, the hearing officer issued a Decision and Order of Public Nuisance Hearing Officer and Notice of Intent to Abate (“Order”) on August 18, 2021, upholding the City’s NOV and concluding that grading, as defined by the California Building Code did occur on the property without the required grading permit, as required by section 8-1.17 of the City’s Municipal Code.
The Hearing Officer, through the Order, directed that INC do the following:
Pacifica City Council 4
April 27, 2026
1. Install erosion control measures such as, but not limited to, silt fences, gravel bags, or straw wattles to contain soil piles in their current locations to the satisfaction of the Building Official; and
2. Limit the use of the Covered Arena to its occupancy classification and subject to approval by the Building Official; and
3. Refrain from any additional grading or removal of sand/soil from the property and to obtain a grading permit for the illegal grading/sand relocation that occurred on the Property as set forth in the NOV no later than May 30, 2022.
The City and INC entered into an agreement to extend the deadline. The Agreement set forth the agreed upon terms and obligations relating to compliance with the provisions of the Order and extended the May 30, 2022, deadline. The application was subsequently filed by the agreed upon date.
At that time, Staff, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, determined that there was no specific plan on file for the site and therefore in order for the applicant to obtain a retroactive grading permit for the work cited in the Notice of Violation, the following approvals would be required: Rezone (RZ-211-22), Development Plan (DP-87-22), and Specific Plan (SP-180-22)2to allow for continued single-family residential use of the existing residence and associated improvements pursuant to the HPD provisions. Additionally, to comply with the parking requirements in Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-
4.2259(a), the applicant proposes to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation in order to comply with the covered parking requirements for singlefamily residential use.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed project on August 4, 2025, and November 17, 2025. At the public hearing on November 17, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council disapproval of the Specific Plan SP-180-22 (“Development Permit”), and to recommend City Council denial of Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 (“Legislative Approvals”) by adopting PC Resolution No. 2025-016 (Attachment D).
ANALYSIS
The City Council conducted a public hearing on February 23, 2026, and continued the item to a date uncertain. During the hearing, the City Council directed staff to conduct additional research into the applicability and requirements for a rezone, development plan, and specific plan, and return to Council at a later date.
The City Council, in its capacity as the legislative body of the City and in the exercise of its police power under the California Constitution, may consider and approve legislative actions on behalf of the City. The City Council is not bound by specific findings when approving legislative items and may consider all information relevant to the public health, safety, and 2 Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.2256 requires that any development proposal within the HPD “pursue the procedures and standards set forth for the P-D District,…[s]uch procedures and standards shall include the requirement for reclassification to a P-D District…” This reclassification requires the preparation of a Development Plan2 and a Specific Plan3 to authorize the retroactive grading work Pacifica City Council 5
April 27, 2026
welfare of persons within the City. It is also within the purview of the City Council to evaluate the applicability of the Zoning Ordinance to a project and reach an interpretation that differs from staff.
Results of Research and Analysis
Staff has historically taken a very conservative approach and interpreted the definition of “development,” for purposes of applying the HPD regulations, to include any type of grading because of the intent of the HPD, which is to preserve and enhance land within the HPD and to help protect people and property from all potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides. (See PMC sections 9-4.2250 and 9-4.2252). There is, however, no definition of “development” in Articles 22 or 22.5. Moreover, certain provisions of both Articles appear to be intended for the development of sites for residences or structures, rather than the simple act of relocating soil to correct previous illegal activity undertaken on already developed property.
Based on Council’s direction provided at the hearing on February 23, 2026 and the research and analysis provided in this staff report, the Council may determine that the specific illegal grading that was subject to the NOV is not “development” for the purposes of applying the HPD regulations in Articles 22 and 22.5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 4. Rationale for this interpretation includes the unique facts associated with the illegal grading performed by the Applicant on the Property. As there is no definition in the HPD for “development”, the Council has the discretion to interpret “development” as not including the type of grading involved in this case, which does not involve any residential or structural development and would not have any detrimental effect on the land within the HPD or create any potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides. The Council could, therefore, determine that the type of grading involved in this particular instance is not “development” subject to the regulations in Articles 22 and 22.5.
This determination would not negate the requirement that INC obtain a grading permit from the Building Official pursuant to the requirements in Title 8 of the PMC. The owner would still need to apply for and obtain a retroactive grading permit pursuant to the Building Code, NOV and Agreement. However, planning entitlements would not be required.
In the event the Council determines that the grading undertaken by the applicant to correct the illegal grading does not constitute “development,” staff has prepared a Draft Resolution (Attachment A) in support of the interpretation based on the analysis provided above.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
In the event that the Council moves forward with the determination that the grading that occurred is not “development,” then no CEQA review is necessary prior to that determination (CEQA Guidelines sections 15268, 15270, 15378(c)).
In the event that the City Council moves forward with Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200), staff analysis supports that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 1 (“Existing Facilities Section 15301(e)) and Class 4 (“Minor Alteration to Land” 15404(a)). Additionally, the project would be exempt under the Commonsense exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as CEQA applies only Pacifica City Council 6
April 27, 2026
to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Please refer to the detailed CEQA findings in the Draft Ordinance to enact the Rezoning and Development Plan (Attachment B) and Draft Resolution to approve the Specific Plan (Attachment C).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council hold a hearing, consider the options outlined in this report, and take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution determining that the grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton in an already developed area that was subject to the Notice of Violation is not “development” subject to the requirements of Articles 22 and 22.5 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, and that the applicant is not required to rezone to Planned Development with a development plan and specific plan but rather only needs to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Title 8 of the Municipal Code.; or
2. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504 (Class 4-“Minor Alteration to Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Council could reject both options identified by staff and provide alternative direction to staff.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Review of the proposed resolution and ordinance is not directly associated with a City Council goal or an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. Serving in a legislative capacity is a routine function of the City Council as part of its normal governance process as established in the Pacifica Municipal Code and in State Law.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact. Processing costs for this item are paid by the applicant.
ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution-Not Development-650 Cape Breton (DOCX) Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (DOCX)
Pacifica City Council 7
April 27, 2026
Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (DOCX) Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial(PDF) Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (PDF)