RESOLUTION NO. ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN SP-180-22 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO
PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256 AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170- 060, 022-320-200); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
(FILE NO. 2022-037)
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Patrick Lam, ENGO Incorporated (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022- 037)(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential /Hillside Preservation District) and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the City Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District requires approval of a Specific Plan prior to issuance of a retroactive grading permit because development in the P-D district must demonstrate proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses, per PMC Section 9-4.2210; and WHEREAS, once the Project is approved, issuance of a building permit for installation of a prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence would be required to comply with PMC Section 9-4.2259(a); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-016 recommendation of denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommendation of disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87-22), which negated the need to make findings for A-2
disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180-22) and negated the needed to make a CEQA determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on February 23, 2026, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporates all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the City Council of the City of Pacifica introduced an ordinance to approve Development Plan DP-87-22 and Rezoning RZ-211-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) Zoning District with a Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the Project qualifies for Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301(e) and 15304(a), respectively, and the Common Sense Exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as described below, applies to the Project:
The Project is categorically exempt as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) and 15304(a), as described below:
15301(e) Existing Facilities
Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.
The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. Examples include but are not limited to:
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
The subject proposal will allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. While all existing structures and buildings on site remain, the proposed project includes the installation of an 8-foot tall, 20 by 20-foot prefabricated carport in order to comply with the covered parking requirements as part of the PMC Sec 9-4.2259(a). This A-3
would be a negligible expansion of existing use to allow a carport to be installed on the site.
15304(a) Minor Alterations to Land
Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist.
The subject proposal for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property would allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The approximate volume of the relocated soil taken from the covered arena is 100-300 cubic yards. The average slope of where the unpermitted grading took place is calculated at 0 percent.
Because the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 4 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as described below:
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The proposed project is for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property will allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The P-D and Specific Plan approvals would not have a significant effect on the environment as they are administrative actions. The grading that was undertaken by the applicant involved removing sand/soil from the covered arena to areas outside of the covered arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100- 300 cubic yards, which also would not have a significant effect on the environment as the amount is relatively minor and the location from the covered arena to outside the covered arena would not have a significant effect on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-180-22, pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) section 9-4.2209:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.
An approved development plan contains a list of approved uses for an area with P-D zoning. The approved uses in a development plan are implemented with approval of one or more specific plans which specify the site layout, architectural design, and other detailed A-4
parameters of individual projects proposed for construction. The application for the proposed project includes the development plan and the specific plan together.
The City Council finds that the Development Plan would allow the existing single-family residential uses and uses such as home occupations, in accordance with the PMC provisions in order to obtain a retroactive grading permit and is consistent with the Development Plan, that is being approved concurrently with this Specific Plan. (2) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the existing foundation. Therefore, the Commission finds that the finding is not applicable.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the Specific Plan SP180-22, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated into this resolution by reference.
* * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney A-5
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval:
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-180-22) TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL USE AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE HPD OVERLAY TO
PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256. (FILE NO. 2022-037)
City Council Meeting of April 27, 2026
Planning Division of the Community Development Department
1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA” prepared February 19, 2025, and attached to the November 17, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as modified by the following conditions.
2. Any improvements not identified in the plans set entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POSTCONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA,” prepared February 19, 2025, or changes in use not specifically authorized by this Specific Plan SP 180-22, Rezoning RZ-211-22, and Development Plan DP-87-22, shall be prohibited unless any modifications to the current uses authorized by Specific Plan SP 180-22 are processed and approved by the City.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading and building permit, the City Council of the City of Pacifica shall approve the Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22.
4. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any grading and building permit application.
5. Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction prior to the issuance of a retroactive grading permit and building permit for the proposed carport.
6. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
7. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or 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, A-6
determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City.
8. The approval of Specific Plan SP-180-22 (“Development Permits”) is contingent on the City Council’s approval of Development Plan DP-87-22 . The City Council’s approval of the Development Permits shall take effect on and shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. For the purposes of this Resolution, “final determination” shall mean effective date of the Ordinance approving the Rezoning (RZ211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87-22). If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Community Development Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Community Development Director may administratively grant a single, one year extension provided, at the Community Development Director’s sole discretion, if the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one-year extension. In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the approval or approvals, the Community Development Director may toll the expiration of the approval or approvals during the pendency of such litigation.
Building Division
9. The applicant shall ensure that all materials are stored and maintained in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent potential violations.
10. The applicant shall obtain a retroactive grading permit for the previously unpermitted grading work within 90 days of project approval. The permit application shall include soil treatment measures consistent with the plans titled "650 Cape Breton Dr Post-Construction Site Plan, Pacifica, California," prepared on February 19, 2025. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Building Official.
11. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within 90 days of project approval and install the detached carport in accordance with the design, dimensions, and specifications approved by the Planning Commission. Any modifications to the approved design shall require review and approval by the Community Development Director, or as otherwise required by the Planning Commission.
Engineering Division
12. Any Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the A-7
construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the project plans.
13. The improvements shall be consistent with the plans approved by, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Conditions of Approval. All construction shall meet the latest California Building Code, California Fire Code, City of Pacifica Municipal Code and the City Standard Specifications and Drawings. Securities for all required improvements, and applicable fees and charges, shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain all required permits before commencing work. All required improvements shall be constructed at no cost to the City except where specifically agreed to by the City under the provisions of a written agreement. Grading and improvement plan review and approval by the City Engineer are required before any City Permit is issued. The improvement plans shall include details for on‐site and off‐site improvements for vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, traffic signs and markings, utility service connections, modifications and extension of the City’s sewer, storm drain, safety lighting, landscaping, and other public service and common facilities. All utility services shall be underground unless otherwise approved. Said improvements shall conform to City of Pacifica and affected Agency’s standards.
14. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Cape Breton Drive. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.
15. Existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that are damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project. ***END***