Agenda packet — Pacifica City Council, September 28, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

residential uses and does not include a hotel, nor any shopping or dining opportunities, and thus is inconsistent with this policy.

4. ES-I-13 states, “Proportional Mix of Uses. Strive to achieve a balanced mix of retail and service uses in commercial centers and districts to support visitor- and sales tax-generating uses.” The project proposes only residential uses and does not include visitor and sale tax generating uses, and thus is inconsistent with this policy.

5. ES-I-18 states, “Public Realm Improvements. Invest in streetscape and public space improvements to attract visitor-oriented development and improve Pacifica’s image and the quality of life for residents. Public realm improvement priority areas are: … new public space and streetscape associated with development in the Quarry site … .” The application materials submitted lack detail and are inconsistent regarding the project’s proposed public space component of the overall development, as set forth in detail under Item B.4 above. Thus, the proposed project is inconsistent with this policy.

6. ES-I-35 states, “Preserve the Experience of the Natural Environment. Ensure that new development projects do not disrupt view corridors from prominent points or otherwise interfere with residents’ and visitors’ experience of Pacifica’s natural areas and amenities.” From the renderings submitted on Sheets G0.04 – G0.06, the proposed project is inconsistent with this policy as the project is proposed in on an undeveloped area, between the Calera Creek Trail and the Coastline, a further the proposed project will be proposed adjacent to Calera Creek, existing wetlands, and atop a coastal bluff area, the project’s proximity to these existing natural features would directly disrupt view corridors that interfere with resident’s and visitor’s experience of Pacifica’s natural area and amenities from the trail, adjacent properties. The renderings provided show the proposed projectin the immediate view corridorsfrom the Calera Creek trail, Rockaway Beach parking lot, and from Highway 1 butthey do notshow view corridorsfrom other prominent viewpoints in the City and therefore may potentially be further inconsistent with this General Plan policy. A forthcoming review is anticipated as it pertains to the City’s Design Guidelines.

Therefore, the project may be inconsistent with this General Plan policy, and additional renderings are needed to determine the extent to which the project is inconsistent with the General Plan policy. In addition, various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application and additional inconsistencies may be noted.

7. ES-I-36 states, “Appropriate Site Design. Ensure that development projects adjacent to protected natural areas are designed to minimize impacts on those areas by employing low impact development techniques for stormwater management, using native/non-invasive landscaping, and minimizing nighttime lighting and glare.” From the proposed C3. Checklist, landscaping plans details submitted on Sheets L0.0-L1.01 and L3.00-L4.01, lighting plans submitted on Sheet L2.00 , and EL0.00-EL1.03, the proposed project may be inconsistent with this policy. Lighting plans show landscape lighting but its unclear if any additional exterior lighting is being proposed on the exterior of any building beyond what is proposed in the landscape and electrical lighting plans.

Further, a forthcoming review is anticipated as it pertains to the City’s Design Guidelines.

Therefore, the project may be found inconsistent with this General Plan policy. In addition,

8.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 43 of 44 ends

various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application and additional inconsistencies may be noted.

8. CD-I-1 states, “Primary Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica (at and around the Park Mall site)…. Rockaway Beach will be the visitor-oriented center. Its charming coastal character will be strengthened by new development and the district will be extended with a connective street pattern onto the flat portion of the Quarry site. It may gain a new, defining feature such as a destination hotel or conference center.” The project proposes only residential uses, does not include a connective street pattern to Rockaway Beach, and does not include a feature such as destination hotel or conference center, and thus is inconsistent with this policy.

9. C1-G-3 states, “Safety. Make safety a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations.” Various studies, including a transportation study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding safety, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

10. CI-G-5 states, “Vehicle Miles Traveled. Strive to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled by developing higher-density, mixed use areas, designing pedestrian-oriented streets, and improving transit options and efficiency.” Various studies, including a Transportation Study with a Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

11. CI-I-16 states, “LOS for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Transit Users. Strive to maintain LOS C or better for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users on all roadways, and impose mitigation measures as needed to achieve multi-modal service objectives.” Various studies, including a transportation study with an LOS analysis, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding LOS for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

12. CI-I-17 states, “Vehicle Level of Service on Roadways Included in the Congestion Management Program. Accept an LOS E on SR 1 and SR 35, consistent with the C/CAG Congestion Management Program (CMP), in planning improvements.” Various studies, including a transportation study with an LOS analysis, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding vehicle LOS on roadways included in the Congestion Management Program, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

13. CI-I-18 states, “Vehicle Level of Service for Other Roadways and Intersections. For all roadways and intersections not included in the CMP network, strive to maintain LOS D for vehicles during peak periods. Allow level of service to exceed this threshold under the following circumstances

8.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 44 of 45 ends

• Constraints on development as would be required to achieve or maintain these standards would adversely impede achievement of this Plan’s economic,. land use and community development, and environmental goals and policies;
• Mitigation of congestion would negatively affect transit, bicycle or pedestrian circulation, or would conflict with General Plan goals for these alternative modes of circulation, for example by increasing crossing distances, increasing pedestrian safety risk, or restricting bicycle or transit access;
• Traffic congestion is a result of an effort to promote transit ridership and/or access, including the development of higher-density development in mixed use areas; or • A demonstrated significant increase in transit ridership, carpooling, bicycling, and/or walking is achieved.

Various studies, including a transportation study with an LOS analysis, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding vehicle LOS for other roadways and intersections, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

14. CCI-I-23 states, “Design for Safety. Incorporate safety measures in improvement designs for intersections, roadways, pedestrians, transit, and bicycle facilities.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. Various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project is providing pedestrian-oriented street improvements implementing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

15. CI-I-32 states, “Class II Facility Design. Wherever Class II facilities are designated, make bike lanes at least 5 feet wide along local streets and at least 6 feet wide on arterials or highways. Separate Class II facilities from vehicle traffic with a solid stripe and mark them with bike lane symbols.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements was not included. Various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project bike lanes meet these design specifications, thus the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

16. CI-I-33 states, “ClassIII Facility Design. Demarcate ClassIII bicycle facilities by painting “sharrows” on streets, where appropriate.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements was not included. Various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project is bike lanes to these design specifications, thus the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy .

8.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 45 of 46 ends

17. CI-I-34 states, “Signage Program. Develop and implement a signage program for the bikeway system in order to:
• Alert motorists to the presence of cyclists on the road; • Alert cyclists to route turns junctions, and changes in the class of bicycle facility; and • Provide a clear identity for each bicycle route, and periodically provide distance to key destinations.”
Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements was not included. No details on any proposed signage program for any proposed bikeway system are included. Various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As such, thus the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

18. CI-I-35 states, “Obstructions. Align designated bikeways to avoid obstructions such as light posts, signage, trees, and curb cuts, and relocate or modify these obstructions as necessary.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements was not included. Various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As such, thus the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

19. CI-I-58 states, “Accessible Parking. Require convenient and accessible parking facilitiesfor persons with disabilities, consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. Identification of roads and paths as public or private, and delineation of existing and proposed improvements and easements was also not provided. Variousstudies, including a Transportation Study, will be required asthe City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project is providing accessible parking, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

20. OC-I-65 states, “New Cultural Facilities. Support the location or relocation of cultural facilities as part of redevelopment of the Rockaway Quarry site or in the West Sharp Park neighborhood, where such uses could generate economic benefits.” As discussed above under Item B.4., the submittal materials lack details and are internally inconsistent regarding the project’s proposed Public Open Space and Recreation plan component, including any proposed cultural facilities (or not). As there is not enough information to determine if the project is supporting new cultural facilities, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

21. CO-I-53 states “Transportation Control Measures. Ensure compliance with the most current Bay Area Clean Air Plan by implementing the Plan’s recommended Transportation Control Measures.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies 17 TCMs aimed at reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled; increasing access to and support of alternative modes of transportation; promoting compact, walkable land use patterns; and increasing public education and awareness.” Various

8.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 46 of 47 ends

studies, including transportation, air quality and greenhouse gas studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding transportation control measures, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

22. CO-I-65 states, “Establish outdoor lighting performance standards to minimize energy use while ensuring appropriate light levels. These can be met by : • Greater use of photocells or astronomical time switches; • Directional and shielded LED lights • Security lights with motion detectors; and • Prohibitions against continuous all- night outdoor lighting unless needed for security reasons. Sheet L2.00 includes a lighting plan with the “NOTE: SEE HLB' DRAWING FOR LIGHTING ENLARGEMENT PLANS AND LIGHT FIXTURE SELECTION” however this drawing is not found within the materials submitted. Without these specific lighting details, it appears the proposal could be inconsistent with this policy.

23. SA-I-71 states, “Siting and Design. New development on vacant shoreline property shall be sited and designed to be safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for at least 100 years without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development. Permit approvals shall prohibit shoreline protection structures for the authorized development, require the property owner to record an acknowledgement that the development does not qualify as an existing structure entitled to construction of a shoreline protection structure under Coastal Act Section 30235 and a waiver of any rights to such protection structures and where necessary require a removal and restoration plan, including bonding for large projects, to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure.” Details on 100-year floodplain and a 35-foot creek setback from top of bank are not included in the materials submitted. As noted in Item B.3. above, portions of the project site appear to be within the LCP mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zone. Site-specific mapping and assessment will be required as the City continues to process this application. In addition, various environmental studies will be required. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets the requirements of these policies related to siting and design, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

24. SA-I-90 states, “Cleanup of Contamination. Require applicants for development in a potentially contaminated location to perform inspection and cleanup if the site is found to be contaminated with hazardous substances. The City will require a project applicant to have the site inspected by a registered Environmental Assessor. Reports detailing the results must be submitted for City review, and level of remediation and cleanup must be in compliance with federal and State standards.” The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does not confirm if there are any known nearby sources of soil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. Various studies, such as possibly a Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 site assessment, may be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the

8.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 47 of 48 ends

project meets this policy regarding cleanup of contamination, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

25. SA-I-103 states, “Emergency Access on New Roadways. Ensure that new roadways are developed in accordance with standards the Municipal Code. In all new development, require adequate access to be provided for emergency vehicles, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.” From the plans submitted details on fire hydrants and fire apparatus road with a measurement on the ground as path of travel, minimum NCFA fire apparatus accessturning radii and grade with dimensions and scope of roadway are not included.

As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding emergency access on new roadways, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

26. NO-I-I states, “Community Noise Level Standards. Use the Community Noise Level Exposure Standards, shown in Table 9-1, as review criteria for new land uses. Require all new development that would be exposed to noise greaterthan the “normally acceptable” noise levelrange to reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures.” No acoustical analysis or noise study were included in the application materialssubmitted. However, these studies will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding community noise levelstandards, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

27. NO-I-2 states, “Design Features for Noise Reduction. Require noise-reducing mitigation to meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards in Table 9-2. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following: • Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation; • Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers; • Use acoustic baffling of ventsfor chimneys, attic and gable ends; • Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions. .” No acoustical analysis, noise study, or noise attenuating construction details were included in the application materials submitted. However these studies will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding noise reduction, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

28. NO-I-2 states, “Best Available Control Technology. Require new, fixed noise sources (e.g. mechanical equipment) to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise and vibration. Noise from mechanical equipment can often be reduced by applying soundproofing materials, mufflers, or other controls provided by the manufacturer.” And NO-I-4 states, “Mechanical Equipment for New Residential Development. Ensure that building regulations require that noise-generating appliances serving new multi-family or mixed-use residential development are located or adequately insulated to protect residents from the noise.” No details on any proposed on-site mechanical equipment to serve the residential buildings was included in the application materials submitted. As such, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy.

Additionally, various studies, including a noise study, will be required as the City continues to

8.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 48 of 49 ends

process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets these policies regarding noise and equipment, the project is potentially inconsistent with these policies.

D. Project Inconsistency with Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 9 – Planning and Zoning The proposed project does not comply with various enforceable provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Pacifica Municipal Code ("PMC") Chapter 9. As discussed in Item A above, the project site is designated C3 Service Commercial under the Zoning Ordinance, a designation established by Ordinance No. 391-C.S.

The C-3 district does not permit residential uses either as a permitted use or a conditional use. (PMC § 9-

4.1201.) PMC § 9-4.1201(b)(8) expressly providesthat no residential uses are authorized in the C-3 district.

Under the Coastal Act, a Coastal Development Permit may only be issued where the proposed development is consistent with the certified LCP, including its implementing ordinances. (Pub. Res. Code § 30604(a), (b).) Because the Coastal Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are implementing the LCP, compliance with the LCP’s requirements is a condition of CDP issuance.

The Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act do not relieve an applicant of the obligation to comply with the Coastal Act or its implementing regulations. As discussed in Item B, courts have recognized that the HAA cannot be construed to override the Coastal Act's independent requirements. B
The project is inconsistent with the following specific provisions of PMC Chapter 9:

1. C-3 Service Commercial District – Prohibited Uses (PMC § 9-4.1201) The project site is zoned C-3 Service Commercial. PMC § 9-4.1201 sets forth the permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 district. Residential uses are not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses. PMC § 9-4.1201(b)(8) expressly states that no residential uses are authorized within the C3 district. The proposed project consists entirely of residential development — approximately 1,225 units — with no commercial component. The proposed use is therefore prohibited under the applicable zoning district.

2. Coastal Zone Combining District (PMC Article 43)
The project site is located within the Coastal Zone Combining District, which overlays the base C3 zoning and imposes additional requirements applicable to development within Pacifica's Coastal Zone. Development within the Coastal Zone Combining District must be consistent with the adopted LCP, including the 2025 LCLUP and its implementing ordinances. As set forth in Item B above, the proposed project is inconsistent with numerous policies of the 2025 LCLUP. Those LCLUP inconsistencies independently constitute non-compliance with the Coastal Zone Combining District requirements. Forthcoming review of the project's consistency with the

8.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 49 of 50 ends

specific development standards of Article 43 will be provided in the City's June 6, 2026 final inconsistency letter.

3. Hillside Preservation District (PMC Article 22.5)
Portions of the project site are located within the Hillside Preservation District, which imposes development standards applicable to hillside areas, including restrictions on grading, slope disturbance, and development in areas prone to erosion, landslides, and geologic instability. As noted in Item B.85 above, the proposed project may be inconsistent with the Hillside Preservation District regulations that restrict development in hazardous hillside areas. Forthcoming review of the project's consistency with the specific development standards of Article 22.5, including applicable slope and grading requirements, will be provided in the City's June 6, 2026 final inconsistency letter.

4. Additional Zoning Standards
The City'sreview of the project's consistency with additional applicable provisions of PMC Chapter 9, including but not limited to development standards for setbacks, height, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, and site design applicable within the C-3 district and any applicable overlay districts, consistency with other PMC requirements and consistency with R-3 standards is ongoing. The City reserves the right to identify additional zoning inconsistencies in its June 6, 2026 final inconsistency letter as that review is completed and as additional departmental input is received.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Compliance As noted in the April 7, 2026, Application completeness letter, the proposed project does not qualify for a statutory or categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, staff has determined that preparation of an Initial Study, and ultimately an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will be required for this Project under CEQA. As part of the EIR process, the City will identify any necessary technical studies/reports required to be prepared to analyze the project’s impacts. If you would like us to proceed directly to an EIR, please let us know.

Next Steps
We will be completing our inconsistency review and will provide you with a final letter by June 6, 2026.

We reserve the right to expand, modify and clarify the inconsistencies raised in this letter. In addition, we will be providing inconsistencies related to other City policies and documents not addressed here, including the City’s Municipal Code, as noted above, and design guidelines, in that letter.

Lastly, as the City continues processing of your application, it may identify additional information that is necessary to clarify, amplify, correct, or supplement your application.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at [email protected].

8.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 202
5-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 50 of 50 ends

Sincerely,
Samantha Updegrave
Community Development Director
City of Pacifica
Attachments:

1. California Coastal Commission, comments, email dated February 18, 2026

8.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT 455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
February 18, 2026
Samantha Updegrave
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA, 94044
Subject: Proposed Multifamily Residential Development Project at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site
Dear Mrs. Updegrave:

Thank you for the opportunity to review, and the request for comment on, the application for the development of some 1,225 residential units on some 86 acres at the site of the former Pacifica Quarry (APNs 018-150-110, -120, and -150). From our initial review of the submittal we have concerns related to lack of City of Pacifica Local Coastal Program (LCP) compliance, unit affordability, and the need for an environmental impact report (EIR). The concerns laid out below do not include previously unaddressed Coastal Act/LCP issues that apply to proposed development of the site, which also apply to the current proposal (related to public access, wetland and ESHA protection, archeological/cultural resources, coastal hazards, coastal view corridors, and transportation/traffic, as further described in our previous correspondence dated November 22, 2016, October 12, 2020, April 4, 2022, October 11, 2024, and October 20, 2025), and where those prior comments remain and are incorporated herein by reference. If any of these issues have been addressed, we suggest that the manner in which that was accomplished be documented in the application materials.

1. Applicable Law
Regarding claims in the submittal letter from Buchalter (dated December 31, 2025) that state that because the preliminary SB 330 application was filed with the City prior to the Commission’s certification of the updated LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) the proposed development does not need to be consistent with the updated LCP, a few clarifications are necessary. Both the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and Housing Crisis Act (HCA or SB 330) explicitly state that no provisions contained within may be construed to lessen the requirements of the Coastal Act, including through implementing or amending a City’s local coastal program. Specifically, that section states:

Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). For a housing development project proposed within the coastal zone, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an affected county or an affected city from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition necessary to implement or amend a certified local

8.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 2 coastal program consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).

Accordingly, the proposal here must comply with the policies outlined in the City’s updated LCP, irrespective of the date of the preliminary submittal. It is also worth noting that prior to the adoption of the updated LUP, the project site was an area of deferred LCP certification, meaning that the Commission retained coastal permitting jurisdiction over the site. Even assuming the applicant was correct in stating that the updated LCP does not apply, then by extension that is an argument that the prior regulatory condition applies, and that prior condition would require the applicant to apply to the Commission for any proposed development, where the Coastal Act would be the standard of review.

Given that the updated LUP carries out the Coastal Act in Pacifica, and has been found consistent with the Act by the Commission in that regard, it is not at all clear that the substantive difference between the Act and the updated LUP would be significant. And in any case, it is immaterial as the updated LCP applies to this property for the reason articulated above.

2. Zoning Inconsistency
The proposed development conflicts with the LCP’s zoning for the site. Specifically, under the LCP the western portion of the site is zoned as a mix of Conservation and Visitor Serving Commercial, and the eastern portion is zoned as Visitor Serving Commercial, neither of which accommodate multi-family residential development. As a result, for a project of this nature to even be considered, the LCP zoning would require amendment.

3. CEQA
The applicant appears to argue that the project is exempt from CEQA, but this is not the case. Projects pursued under the HCA (including builder’s remedy) are not exempt from CEQA (pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(e)). Therefore, this project requires the City, acting as lead CEQA agency, to complete the appropriate CEQA process (e.g., an EIR).

4. Affordability Requirements
The submittal purports to propose a 100% affordable, 1,225 unit project. However, from reviewing the submittal materials we are unable to determine if the affordability is deed restricted or required to remain affordable for the period as required by the law. Under the HAA and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the affordable units must be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. Accordingly, please clarify whether this proposal will include deed restricted affordable units, and provide the methodology supporting the rent calculations for the units to constitute affordable units as required by the law.

5. Incomplete Determinations
We understand that the applicant is claiming that the City cannot determine the application to be incomplete, citing to Government Code Section 65589.5. However, the requirements of the LCP pertaining to CDPs are not preempted by HAA and HCA, including as it extends to incomplete determinations, for the same reasons that the LCP applies to this development as articulated above.

8.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 3 6. Site Requirements
We have previously provided many comments related to various proposed projects at this former quarry site, including related to reclamation. To help consolidate our comments for the City and the applicant, please see the below list of primary outstanding questions and comments (and please also refer to previous correspondence dated November 22, 2016, October 12, 2020, April 4, 2022, October 11, 2024, and October 20, 2025, included herein by reference). Please note that these questions and comments are not exhaustive, and we may have different and/or additional comments as the application and development review process unfolds. For now, however, please consider the following:

Reclamation Plan Alternatives Analysis
We understand that the applicant proposes to reclaim the quarry site under a previously proposed 1996 Reclamation Plan. Please require a full evaluation for all possible and previous reclamation alternatives, including at a minimum the alternatives identified in the 1996 and 2016 reclamation plans, a reduced fill alternative, an alternative where the impacted wetlands would be mitigated on the quarry parcel as opposed to the currently proposed eastern parcel, and an alternative that would avoid and minimize impacts to coastal wetlands on the project site to the greatest extent feasible while meeting the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements.

SMARA Regulations
Please require submission of the specific chapters, sections, and language of SMARA which requires the site be reclaimed instead of being able to remain as open space in its current form. Please also provide information regarding SMARA fill requirements, the minimum amount of fill needed for the proposed project, and which alternatives would meet SMARA standards.

Reduced Fill Alternative
We have unanswered questions regarding the reduced fill alternative identified in the previous EIR. As such, please require the following information: (1) explain if and how the Reduced Fill Alternative could accommodate the currently proposed housing project; (2) explain if and how the Reduced Fill Alternative would change the grading ratios compared to the proposed 1996 reclamation plan; (3) provide the specifics for the amount of fill required in the Reduced Fill Alternative according to the minimum SMARA standards, and how this compares to the fill required for proposed preferred project; (4) clarify how much less fill would be placed in the quarry pit in the Reduced Fill Alternative compared to the proposed project; (5) explain how the Reduced Fill Alternative would impact the existing wetlands and the proposed plan for wetland mitigation that would be required, and if reduced fill would lessen impacts to the existing wetlands; (6) analyze how the Reduced Fill Alternative would differ visually from the proposed preferred project and provide new visual simulations; (7) provide the estimate of greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled for the Reduced Fill Alternative, including a comparison to the proposed preferred project; and (8) expand on how the proposed public access trails would be altered by the Reduced Fill Alternative, including specifics of which existing trails would remain with the proposed preferred project.

8.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 4 Wetland Delineation
A major concern is that the reclamation plan proposes wetland restoration on the eastern portion of the site when the impacted wetlands are located on the western portion, referred to as the “Quarry Parcel”. As the proposed mitigation wetlands would relocate the resource to a more inland site, they may not fulfill the same ecological role as the current wetlands since they are dispersed throughout the Quarry Parcel and provide habitat value to the site. Typically, on-site, in-kind restoration is the preferred requirement to assure adequate mitigation, and the proposed location of the restoration efforts would likely be considered off-site as currently proposed. If offsite restoration is the chosen approach, it is critical the applicant provides a strong ecological rationale to support the decision to relocate the wetlands. Further, we recommend incorporating a more detailed and thorough analysis of how the proposed project and each of the proposed project alternatives would impact the wetlands and other biological resources on site and how each would mitigate for such impacts.

As such, please require the following information: (1) an updated wetland delineation (given the prior wetland delineation was conducted in peak dry season (August) and is now more than five years old (2019)) completed during the growing season, as is consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; (2) anticipated impacts from the proposed reclamation plan and the proposed housing plan in relation to the updated wetland delineation; (3) a comprehensive wetland mitigation plan using the appropriate mitigation ratios; (4) information on how impacts to wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), and trees will be mitigated, considering the Coastal Commission’s typical mitigation ratios of 4:1 for wetlands and 3:1 for ESHA where these ratios assume habitat creation or substantial restoration strategies; (5) a strong ecological rationale for why the proposed project would restore wetlands in the eastern portion of the site when the wetlands being destroyed are located in the western portion, and why the proposed project would change the number and size of distinct wetland areas (i.e. from wetland complexes composed of multiple smaller features to one larger area that consolidates the acreage); (6) complete analyses assessing the potential ecological effects of mitigating a mosaic of spatially dispersed smaller wetlands as opposed to one continuous larger feature, including the potential impacts for isolation from the riparian corridor at Calera Creek, surrounding upland resources, connections to Mori Point resources in the north, and potentially reduced habitat complexity (7) quantitative monitoring methods and a clear rationale for the methods proposed, as well as a detailed sampling design with quantitative methods, statistical approaches, criteria for assessing success, and assessment methods.

Vegetation Impacts
Please require the following information: (1) information on how the fill proposed would ensure contamination by invasives is avoided; (2) additional information regarding the intention to visually integrate the revegetation with the surrounding open spaces; (3) strategies to reduce aerial erosion and suspension of the imported fill as dust in case that revegetation fails to establish; (4) the technical basis for the native species mix proposed in the revegetation plan, including quantitative data from an appropriate reference site that addresses community composition and proportions, to ensure that what is planted on-site is appropriate for the local conditions and landscape; (5) seed

8.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 5 sources that will ensure the genetic integrity of local populations, including through certified local harvest within coastal San Mateo County; and (7) how the project will create a self-sustaining native vegetation community, including consideration for the impacts of any maintenance and vegetation management actions including, but not limited to, weeding, mowing, the application of herbicides, or irrigation inputs.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Please require the following information: (1) how the project will minimize adverse changes to the site’s runoff flows resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces; (2) how the proposed vegetated swales and other best management practices (BMPs) will be sized to infiltrate, retain, and/or treat the volume of runoff produced by the 85th percentile 24-hour design storm; (3) how the project will minimize compaction of soils during construction activities to protect the site’s natural infiltration capacity; (4) how the project will avoid the use of temporary erosion and sediment control products (such as fiber rolls, erosion control blankets, mulch control netting, and silt fences) that incorporate plastic netting (such as polypropylene, nylon, polyethylene, polyester, or other synthetic fibers), in order to minimize wildlife entanglement and plastic debris pollution (5) how the project will minimize the use of landscaping chemicals for the revegetated areas, to the extent feasible; (6) the project’s use of irrigation, and if applicable, how the project will minimize potential adverse effects of dry-weather runoff resulting from irrigation; (7) a summary of measures that will be implemented to minimize increased runoff from the proposed hardscape areas; and (8) an analysis of the continued performance of water quality and drainage control measures into the future, taking into account how such measures and the site will be impacted by ongoing sedimentation and other potential impacts caused by sea level rise.

Tribal Consultation
Please require the completion of a Sacred Lands Inventory Search and Native American Contacts List Request with the California Native American Heritage Commission. Following receipt of information regarding any sacred lands or tribes, please provide us with copies of that information and begin the tribal consultation process. If the process has been completed, please provide copies of the engagement and feedback received.

Landform Alteration
The LUP includes policies ER-G-15 and ER-I-44, which require that site restoration take place with minimal landform alteration. All measures to be taken to limit landform alteration as much as possible should be identified, with all unavoidable landform alteration documented, including the reason for it.

Quarry Policies
The LUP includes policies specific to the former quarry site, including LUP Policies ERI-48 and ER-I-51. Policy ER-I-51 states that Development on the quarry site should be prioritized in the “flats”, should connect with the adjacent Rockaway Beach district, and should avoid degradation of the visual qualities of surrounding hillsides and ridgelines, which should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Please outline how the proposed development complies with these requirements.

8.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 6 Coastal View Corridor Impacts
The LUP includes policies specific to impacts on Coastal View Corridors, including LUP Policies ER-G-15 and ER-G-16, and identifies the quarry as an area with view corridors from the west, south, and north. Accordingly, please require the following information:
(1) an outline of how the proposed development is compliant with these policies and how it will not impact coastal view corridors, including in terms of proposed building heights; (2) and analysis of visual impacts that might occur during the various phases of the project including construction, early revegetation, and established revegetation; and (3) visual simulations from all major view corridors identified in the LUP.

Traffic Analysis
LUP policy PR-G-20 requires seeking solutions that ease traffic congestion on Highway 1 near Reina Del Mar Avenue (east of the project site) and Fassler Avenue (south of the project site). The traffic analysis states that 250 days a year for 4 years the project will generate 161 truck trips, or 483 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips, and that once completed is expected to generate 5,892 daily trips. Accordingly, please require the following information: (1) further analysis on the effect this will have on local traffic and Highway 1; and (2) what measures will be taken to offset the greenhouse gas emissions that will be generated from such trips.

Coastal Hazards
Portions of the proposed development are within the City’s mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zones, and accordingly the project must comply with the Coastal Hazards sections of the LUP. Please require the applicant to detail how the project conforms with the Chapter 6 policies of the LUP, including hazards, setbacks, no future armoring provisions, among others.

Public Recreational Access
The Quarry site provides public access to Rockaway Beach and trails that overlook the ocean and thus serves as an important coastal public access resource. Further, the submittal claims that there is no trail connection between the Calera Creek trail and Mori Point to the north, which is incorrect. There are numerous trail connections between the Quarry, Calera Creek, and Mori Point, which would be heavily impacted by the proposed development. Accordingly, please require the following information: (1) a detailed analysis of the negative impacts to public access by the proposed development, and outline how the project can be designed to ensure maximum public recreational access opportunities; (2) a description of all the existing trails that would remain as part of this project; (3) the type of trail maintenance that would be conducted as necessary; and (4) whether the project includes the trail on the southern bluffs accessed from Rockaway Beach.

Alternatives
It is imperative in our view that the proposed project be the subject of a full alternatives analysis that evaluates its impacts and benefits across a co-equal set of evaluation factors that are derived explicitly from LCP requirements. Such evaluation should also consider variations and permutations of the main alternatives analyzed if needed to ensure that LCP inconsistencies are avoided, including related to public access,

8.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 7 wetland/ESHA protection and buffers, coastal hazards, tribal/cultural resources, and coastal view corridors.

Other Agency Approvals
Please require the applicant submit any other agency approvals once they are granted, including but not limited to: the City of Pacifica, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Mining Board, and USFWS.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julian Honey, Coastal Planner
North Central Coast District Office
California Coastal Commission
cc: Paul Heule, Preserve at Pacifica, LLC (applicant)
Enclosures: Commission correspondence dated November 22, 2016, October 12, 2020, April 4, 2022, October 11, 2024, and October 20, 2025.

8.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency 1 2
3 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 ORDINANCE NO. 391- C. S.

ORDINANCE REZONING THE QUARRY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO

COMMERCIAL
THE PEOPLE OF P.ACIFICA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

The following parcels of land: A. P. # 018- 150- 050 & - 070, commonly known as the quarry, are hereby rezoned from A/ B- 5 and M- 1 to C- 3 with the provision that no further public vote be required for any future rezonings except that any residential development of the property, including residential development permitted under the C- 3 designation, shall require a vote of the people. This rezoning does not remove the HPD overlay.

Passed and adopted by the voters of the City of Pacifica at the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 1983.

8.c
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: ATT D - OrdinanceNo391-CS_RezoneQuarry_1983-11-08-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Coastal Crest Residences)) STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

8.d
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 2 coastal program consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).

8.d
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 3 6. Site Requirements
We have previously provided many comments related to various proposed projects at this former quarry site, including related to reclamation. To help consolidate our comments for the City and the applicant, please see the below list of primary outstanding questions and comments (and please also refer to previous correspondence dated November 22, 2016, October 12, 2020, April 4, 2022, October 11, 2024, and October 20, 2025, included herein by reference). Please note that these questions and comments are not exhaustive, and we may have different and/or additional comments as the application and development review process unfolds. For now, however, please consider the following:

8.d
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 4 Wetland Delineation
A major concern is that the reclamation plan proposes wetland restoration on the eastern portion of the site when the impacted wetlands are located on the western portion, referred to as the “Quarry Parcel”. As the proposed mitigation wetlands would relocate the resource to a more inland site, they may not fulfill the same ecological role as the current wetlands since they are dispersed throughout the Quarry Parcel and provide habitat value to the site. Typically, on-site, in-kind restoration is the preferred requirement to assure adequate mitigation, and the proposed location of the restoration efforts would likely be considered off-site as currently proposed. If offsite restoration is the chosen approach, it is critical the applicant provides a strong ecological rationale to support the decision to relocate the wetlands. Further, we recommend incorporating a more detailed and thorough analysis of how the proposed project and each of the proposed project alternatives would impact the wetlands and other biological resources on site and how each would mitigate for such impacts.

8.d
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 5 sources that will ensure the genetic integrity of local populations, including through certified local harvest within coastal San Mateo County; and (7) how the project will create a self-sustaining native vegetation community, including consideration for the impacts of any maintenance and vegetation management actions including, but not limited to, weeding, mowing, the application of herbicides, or irrigation inputs.

8.d
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 6 Coastal View Corridor Impacts
The LUP includes policies specific to impacts on Coastal View Corridors, including LUP Policies ER-G-15 and ER-G-16, and identifies the quarry as an area with view corridors from the west, south, and north. Accordingly, please require the following information:
(1) an outline of how the proposed development is compliant with these policies and how it will not impact coastal view corridors, including in terms of proposed building heights; (2) and analysis of visual impacts that might occur during the various phases of the project including construction, early revegetation, and established revegetation; and (3) visual simulations from all major view corridors identified in the LUP.

8.d
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 7 wetland/ESHA protection and buffers, coastal hazards, tribal/cultural resources, and coastal view corridors.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me via email at [email protected].

8.d
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency

CITY OF PACIFICA
Community Development Department
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
April 28, 2026
Paul Heule
231 Fulton St. W
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Matt Larson
M Larson Incorporated
San Francisco, CA 94124
Sent via email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: File No. 2025-036 – Initial Inconsistencies under the Housing Accountability Act, California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Compliance and Next Steps for Coastal Development Permit (CDP477-25), Development Plan (DP-92-25), Specific Plan (SP-192-25), Tree Permit (TP-14-25), and Sign Permit (S-138-25) for Development of 1,225 rental dwelling units in 20 apartment buildings and 26 townhomes (7 apartment buildings on the East Parcel (APN 018-150-150), and 3 apartment buildings and the townhome units on the West Parcel (018-150-110, 018-150-120)), and 1259 parking spaces on approximately 86.39 acre Vacant Parcels (APN 018-150-110, -120, -150) known as Coastal Crest Residences.

Dear Paul Heule & Matt Larson,
This letter provides initial project inconsistencies pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2)(A), describes compliance with CEQA, and outlines next steps.

As background, you submitted a valid Preliminary Application for the Coastal Crest Residences project (“project”) pursuantto Government Code section 65941.1 on March 7, 2025. You subsequently submitted your regular application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP-477-25), Development Plan (DP-92-25), Specific Plan (SP-192-25), Tree Permit (TP-14-25), and Sign Permit (S-138-25) for the project, on October 6, 2025. The application was deemed incomplete on November 5, 2025. You resubmitted your regular application on February 2, 2026, which was deemed incomplete on February 27, 2026. Your third resubmittal of March 25, 2026, was deemed complete on April 7, 2026.

8.e
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

Inconsistency Analysis
California Government Code 65589.5(j)(2)(A) requires a city to provide notice to developers of a proposed housing development’s inconsistency with “an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision …“ within 60 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete, if the project contains more than 150 units. As your proposed project proposes 1,225 rental dwelling units, the inconsistency analysis is due 60 days after the application for the project was deemed complete (See Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(ii)). As your application was deemed complete on April 7, 2026, the City’s inconsistency analysis is due by June 6, 2026. However, we have begun our inconsistency analysis and are providing you with fundamental project inconsistencies related to Ordinance No. 391, the current Local Coastal Land Use Plan, the General Plan, and Municipal Code, including inconsistencies that affect whether this project is allowable under State law notwithstanding the fact that you have invoked the Builder’s Remedy provisions in the HAA.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(o)(1), City staff are reviewing your application for consistency under the law in effect, on May 7, 2025, the date your preliminary application was deemed submitted. As noted above, we are aware that you have invoked the “Builder’s Remedy” with regard to your application. However, as discussed below, we do not believe that the Builder’s Remedy circumvents voter initiatives adopted by the electorate nor does it circumvent the obligation to comply with the Coastal Act. Thus, the inconsistencies noted below with respect to Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (the City’s voter initiative requiring a vote of the people to develop housing on the project site) and the City’s 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan must be rectified in order to proceed with your development as proposed.

A. Project Inconsistency with Ordinance No. 391-C.S.

Ordinance No. 391-C.S. is a voter initiative that requires a vote of the electorate to allow residential development at the projectsite (“VoterInitiative”). Ordinance No. 391-C.S. was adopted by Pacifica voters in 1983 and designated the quarry site as C-3 Service Commercial. No residential uses are listed as permitted or conditional usesin C-3 Service Commercial. (Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) Sec. 9-4.1201.) C-3 Service Commercial explicitly provides that no residential uses are authorized. (PMC Sec. 9-

4.1201(b)(8).) Of critical importance, the Voter Initiative reserves in the electorate the exclusive power to authorize any residential uses at the site and states as follows:
“The following parcels of land: A.P. #018-150-050 & -070, commonly known as the quarry, are hereby rezoned from A/B-5 and M-1 to C-3 with the provision that no further public vote be required for any future rezonings except that any residential development of the property, including residential development permitted under the C-3 designation, shall require a vote of the people. This rezoning does not remove the HPD overlay.” Contrary to your claim that the project is subject to the Builder’s Remedy, State law does not allow development in contravention of voter initiatives. Courts will preserve the electorate’s initiative power in the absence of clearlegislative intent from the Legislature to abrogate it. (See Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591). Here, neither the HAA, nor its Builder’s Remedy provision, contain express language indicating that the Legislature intended to weaken the electorate’s initiative power. (See Aids Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 73.) Therefore, the

8.e
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

Voter Initiative requirement for a vote of the electorate to develop residential uses on the project site continues to be enforceable, and residential development on the site will require a vote of the people irrespective of the invocation of the Builder’s Remedy.

B. Project Inconsistency with 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) The LCLUP was adopted on May 8, 2025 (“2025 LCLUP” or “LCLUP”) and is applicable to this project under the Coastal Act. While you have asserted that the 1980 LCLUP applies because your preliminary application (deemed submitted on May 7, 2025) “locked in” the 1980 LCLUP regulations rather than the 2025 LCLUP adopted on May 8, 2025, the 2025 LCLUP applies because the Housing Crisis Act does not vest Local Coastal Land Use Plans. (Government Code sections 65589.5(o)(1), (4).).

Contrary to your claims, the City can continue to hold the applicant to the requirements of the Coastal Act, including consistency with the City’s 2025 LCLUP. The list ofregulationsthat become vested as a result of a preliminary application is defined in the Housing Crisis Act, and only includes a general plan, specific plan, zoning, design review and subdivision standards, and impact fees, and does not list a Local Coastal Plan as one of the eligible regulations. (Government Code §65589.5(o)(4).) In addition, the Coastal Act mandates that a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) can only be issued if the project is consistent with the adopted LCLUP. (Pub. Res. Code § 30604(b).) The City was not in a position to consider or approve a CDP until the City’s receipt of an application for a CDP, which occurred when the 2025 LCLUP was in effect.

Case law also supports this conclusion that housing-related laws, including the HAA, cannot be construed to relieve local agencies from complying with the Coastal Act, which means that the 2025 LCLUP applies. (See e.g., Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927; [see also New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCP00426 [same].) Moreover, the Coastal Commission confirmed its agreement with this interpretation in a letter dated February 18, 2026 (see attached). In that letter, the Coastal Commission confirmed that the 2025 LCLUP applies even though the 1980 LCLUP was in effect on the date the preliminary application was deemed submitted.

As the City must apply the policies contained in the 2025 LCLUP, we have analyzed project inconsistencies as to the LCLUP adopted in 2025.1
Please note that a number of the LCLUP policies cited below are identical to policies in the 2040 General Plan and when that occurs, this letter identifies the identical General Plan policy as being inconsistent for the same reasons. For those policies, the section below also refers to the identical General Plan policy.

The project is inconsistent with the following LCLUP policies as set forth below:

1. The LCLUP designatesthe project site with the land use classifications of Conservation and Visitor Serving Commercial, as depicted in Figure 2-3 of the Land Use Diagram, as well as Figure 2-5:

Pacifica Coastal Zone, Central. LCLUP policy LD-I-1 further states that the Visitor Serving 1 This initial letter only addresses inconsistencies with the 2025 LCLUP given that we believe that the 2025 LCLUP applies. However, as we understand that you believe the 1980 LCLUP applies, we will be addressing inconsistencies with the 1980 LCLUP in our inconsistency letter due by June 6, 2026.

8.e
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

Commercial designation is, “..intended to foster and protect areas that attract and cater to visitors, including hotels or a visitor attraction,such as an interpretive center or conference center, restaurants, retail and services, commercial recreation, or other compatible uses. Larger sites, with developable areas of two acres or larger, shall require a hotel, lower-cost overnight accommodation, or visitor attraction as part of new development. The maximum FAR is 3.0.

Buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.”
With respect to the Conservation designation, as noted on page 2-11 of the LCLUP provides that the designation “…takes the place of the Greenbelt district from the previous General Plan. It applies to publicly- or privately-owned open areas not intended for development. Non-structural development, such as trails and viewing areas, is allowed. These areas may include:
• Watershed lands
• Sandy beach areas, including propertiesthat are fully on beaches or coastal dunes or bluffs • Land which is physically unsuitable for development due to geotechnical hazards, excessive steepness, wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), or other environmental constraints, or lies within stream channels; • Areas to remain undeveloped as a result of density transfer or clustered development, or covered by open space, recreational or scenic easements; • Open areas providing a physical and visual buffer between developed or open areas; and • Open space required as mitigation for environmental impacts.” The proposed project is inconsistent with the land use classifications of the site, Visitor-Serving Commercial and Conservation, as it proposes residential only development, which is not an allowable use in Visitor-Serving Commercial or Conservation. Further, the project does not include a hotel, lower-cost overnight accommodation, or visitor attraction within the portion of the site designated as Visitor Serving Commercial, as required. In addition, residential development is proposed within the portion of the site designated Conservation. As such, the proposal is found inconsistent with Figure 2-3, Figure 2-5, and policy LD-I-1, and would require an amendment to the adopted LCLUP.

2. The proposed development site is designated as a “Specific Site-Rockaway Beach, Quarry and Headlands” in Figure 2-4. Page 2-23 of the LCLUP sets forth the following description of “Specific Site-Rockaway Beach, Quarry and Headlands”:
• “...with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The Flats and the Pad overlooking Rockaway Beach are designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial development, supporting such potential uses as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail uses integrated with the Rockaway Beach district.”

8.e
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 5 of 6 ends

• “While housing may be proposed as part of a plan for the site, Ordinance No. 391 provides that rezoning to allow residential uses may occur only if approved by a vote of the electorate.”
The proposed project is inconsistent with the above policy regarding the project site. First, as noted above under Item A, Project Inconsistency with Ordinance No. 391, residential development, as proposed, must be approved by the voters, and voter approval is not proposed as part of the project. Further, the proposed trail improvements are not clearly delineated. Although an area noted as the “proposed new trail” is denoted on several sheets throughout the plan set, the plans do not include detail on how “the proposed new trail” connects Mori Point with Rockaway Beach and the extent and users of the trail, as well as its delineation, are not clear. In addition, there is no visitor-service commercial development component proposed.

3. Section 2.4 “COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES – Coastal-Dependent, Visitor Serving and Recreational Development” states, “Section 30255 of the Coastal Act states that “coastaldependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline.” Lower-cost visitor and recreation facilities (Section 30213); recreational uses and development (Section 30221); and coastal-dependent industry (Section 30260) are specifically called out.

Section 30222 provides that “the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development.” The proposed residential only development is not consistent with priorities to develop coastaldependent development, such as lower-cost visitor and recreation facilities, recreational uses and development and coastal-dependent industry, and is thus inconsistent with this policy.

4. Figure 2-4 designates the project site within the “Rockaway Beach, Quarry, Headlands” Subarea (may be referred as neighborhoods), as well as a Specific Site subject to site specific land use policies and Figure 2-6 includesthe projectsite as part of the “Central Pacifica Coastal Zone”. The land use description for this Specific site states, “This area will remain open space, with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The Flats and the Pad overlooking Rockaway Beach are designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial development, supporting such potential uses as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail usesintegrated with the Rockaway Beach district. Redevelopment of the Quarry site could expand this visitor-oriented area. Any development of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of biological resources to ensure that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; and should be sited and designed to minimize coastal hazard risks in accordance with policies in Chapter 5 and 6 of the LUP. The likely footprint of development could be much smaller than the area designated. While housing may be proposed as part of a plan for the site, Ordinance No. 391 provides that rezoning to allow

8.e
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

residential uses may occur only if approved by a vote of the electorate. …. Development in the Quarry Flats should include new public open space.”
This policy requires compliance with Ordinance No. 391, public open space and trail connections, and protection of biological resources and minimization of coastal hazard risks. As noted above under Item A, Project Inconsistency with Ordinance No. 391, the project is not consistent with Ordinance No. 391.

In addition, the proposed project is inconsistent with the requirement for new public open space, as set forth in detail below. Although the applicant’s project description purports to provide public open space, the application materials submitted are not clear on how the project will be providing public open space and trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach.

With respect to trail improvements, although the project plans include notes regarding a “proposed new trail”, the provision of this trail remains unclear. A number of sheets throughout the plan set includes a textual note stating “propose new trail” (Sheets G0.16, G1.01, C1.01, C1.02, L0.03 – labeled “trail access”, L1.01, L2.00, L3.00, L4.00, A1.01, EL0.00, SI.1.0) that appears as either a solid or dashed line beginning towards the bottom of the Western development parcel, runs parallel to edge of the proposed new roadway providing access up to the northern most development area on the Western parcel (the “Summit” area as described in the project narrative), and appears to terminate at the edge of a proposed townhome on some sheets, or at the terminus of the proposed new roadway on other sheets. However, there is no further detail provided in the plan set, or othersubmitted application materials beyond this one dashed orsolid line appearing to be the only new trail proposed. Sheet G1.02 includes a solid green line denoting “public trail access” (assumed to mean existing trails), and also includestextstating “propose new trail” as previously referenced, and denotes this “propose new trail” as a solid blue line. However, numerous additional areas are also denoted by a solid blue line, but with no corresponding text if those are also proposed new trails or not. The corresponding legend on Sheet G1.02 liststhe solid blue line as “pedestrian circulation” but it is unclear if that means a new proposed pathway intended for project residents or new proposed trail, as there is no corresponding text or narrative. Further, there are no clear trail details connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. In addition, the plans regarding paths, delineation of existing and proposed improvements and easements to trails and/or multi-use paths are not clear.

With respect to the Indigenous Memorial Park, there is no detail on specifications of this proposed new area, nor detail on how it is proposed (or not) to interact and integrate with the existing and proposed public trails, open space, or otherwise. The 10-5-25 submitted written narrative states under Community Amenities an “opportunity for one-acre indigenous memorial park honoring the area’s cultural heritage” but does not provide any description, nor is it noted in Project Description 6. on Sheet G0.01 6. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. On Sheet G0.16, within the northeast lower property extent of the East Parcel, appears to indicate the proposed general location of such possible “park”, with the text and “INDIGENOUS LAND RESERVATION, TO BE DETERMINED(NOT IN SCOPE)” (Sheets G0.16, G1.101, G1.02, L0.06, L1.01, L2.00, L3.00, L4.00, A1.01, EL0.00, EL1.101) which infers that it is not part of the overall proposal. It is also noted as “Indigenous People Node, Size and Location TBD” (Sheet L0.03) and “Native American Heritage Memorial” on Sheet SI1.10. This Indigenous Peoples area is unclear in its title, uses, users, access

8.e
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 7 of 8 ends

and intent, as no specific detail is provided in narrative on the plan, nor elsewhere in the submittal materials.

With respect to the provision for Outdoor Space, Sheet SI 3.0 indicates 3 locations with a “PS - Public Space ID/Regulations” note; two within the western parcel and one within the eastern parcel with the corresponding details on Sheet SI 3.0 for Sign PS includes a sign stating, “public park”, but it is unclear how members of the public would access and use such spaces. Further Sheet L0.03 includes text delineated to one specific area in the Western Parcel as “Open Program Area” and text delineated to one specific area in the Eastern Parcel as “Program/Recreational Spine” but there are no details elsewhere in the application materials describing the specifics of these areas in their intended purposes, intent and use. Without corresponding details and specifications of the public space, it is not clear that public open space is being provided as required.

Lastly, there is not enough information in the application materialsto determine consistency with the requirement to protect biological resources and minimize coastal hazard risks. Although the application’s project description purports to provide “Environmental Stewardship,” the submittal materials do not include specific details as to how the project proposes to fully implement these environmental stewardship actions related to protection and restoration of native habitats, wetlands, and coastal ecosystem, and ecological restoration of wetlands and Calera Creek to enhance biodiversity and habitat health. In addition, biological studies will be required as the City continues to process this application and will provide more detail on whether the project will protect biological resources. As there is not enough information to determine if the project will protect biological resources and minimize coastal hazard risks, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

5. LD-G-3 and LD G-7 state (respectively) as follows regarding any residential development in the Coastal Zone, “Future Residential Development. Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony with the surrounding natural setting.” and “Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, wetlands, riparian corridors, ESHA, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.” Significant portions of the project site have a land use designation of Conservation, but are proposed with residential uses, and thusthe project isinconsistent with LD-G-3. Further, as noted in Item B.4. above, there is a lack of specific details as to how the project proposes to implement its Environmental Stewardship actions and the project is thus potentially inconsistent with LD-G7, which requires open space conservation and habitat protection. No biological study, or mapped areas identifying any ESHA’s or critical wildlife habitat or special status species were included as part of the application of submittal materials.

These policies are also found in General Plan policy LU-G-3 and LU-G-7, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with those General Plan policies.

8.e
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 8 of 9 ends

6. LD-G-4 states, “Higher-Density Housing. Locate higher-density housing outside of Coastal Vulnerability Zones and in accessible places close to community shopping areas and transportation.”
The proposed residential housing project isinconsistent with this policy asit is proposing to locate housing within a Coastal Vulnerability Zone, although the exact extent is unclear from the application materials. Appendix B-4, Coastal Vulnerability Map Rockaway Beach, Quarry and Headlands, of the LCLUP appears to denote portions of the proposed development site within the mapped Coastal Vulnerabilities of “wave run-up”, “storm flood area”, “flood prone area” and “coastal erosion”. From the materials submitted, staff is unable to confirm the exact extent of the specific areas of the development site, and notably, what, if any associated proposed development improvements, may be situated specifically within these various mapped extents of these four different Coastal Vulnerabilities. A screenshot of Appendix B-4 showing the project site is included for reference below.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy LU-G-4, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy LU-G-4.

7. LD-G-8 states, “Changes in Density or Intensity of Land Use in Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Do not increase the density or intensity of land use designations beyond those indicated in the LCLUP for sites located within Coastal Vulnerability Zones.” The proposed residential housing project is inconsistent with this policy as it is proposing an intensified land use of residential on a site currently designated by the LCLUP for Visitor Serving Commercial and Conservation uses within a Coastal Vulnerability zone (see Item B.6 above).

This policy is also found in General Plan policy LU-G-8, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy LU-G-8.

8.e
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 9 of 10 ends

8. LD-I-8 states, “Development Priority for Visitor-Serving and Recreational Uses. Allow visitororiented uses as-of-right in all areas designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial or Low-Intensity Visitor Serving Commercial, and all commercial or mixed-use districts within the Coastal Zone.

Development on Visitor-Serving Commercial sites with developable areas of two acres or larger must include a visitor attraction, hotel, conference center, or similar use, and may also include a range of retail and service uses. Smaller sites may have any visitor- or pedestrian-oriented retail or service use.”
The project is inconsistent with this policy because the project site is over 2 acres and is proposed as 100 percent residential without any visitor serving commercial uses included.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy LU-I-9, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy LU-I-9.

9. LD-I-17 states, “Rockaway Quarry Site. Enable the responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry Site, considering the potential coastal hazard constraints (including but not limited to bluff erosion, slope stability, and flooding), as well as the biological constraints (specific to sensitive species, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and wetlands) and coastal resource protection more broadly. Preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry site could achieve the desired development outcomes. Allowable development should provide community benefits, including substantial public open space, and commercial uses and public spaces attractive to both visitors and local residents. Uses may include an inn or hotel; shops and restaurants; performance or conference spaces; and public uses. Ordinance No. 391 provides that residential uses are only authorized after a vote of the electorate. Development should be integrated with the Rockaway Beach district, to create an expanded visitor-oriented area in a memorable natural setting.” The project is inconsistent with this policy for a number of reasons.

First, as noted above under Item A, Project Inconsistency with Ordinance No. 391, the project is inconsistent with Ordinance No. 391. In addition, as the project proposes residential uses, with no commercial uses, no identified community benefits, and no proposed plan on how it would be integrated with the Rockaway Beach District to expand this visitor-oriented area, it is inconsistent with the development direction of this policy. Further, the project is inconsistent with the direction to prepare a specific plan to achieve the desired development outcomes, as no specific plan is proposed. Additionally, as noted in Item B.4 above, the project is potentially inconsistent with the policy’s direction on public open space and public spaces. From the materials submitted, the 100-year floodplain and a creek setbacks from top of bank are not included and the site may be subject to flooding. Lastly, various studies, including a biological resources study, will be required as the City continues to process this application and will assist in determining whether the project is consistent with the aspects of this policy related to coastal hazard constraints, biological constraints, and coastal resource protection. As there is not

8.e
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 10 of 11 ends

enough information at this time, the project is potentially inconsistent with those aspects of the policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy LU-I-25, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy LU-I-25.

10. LD-I-18 states, “Rockaway Beach. Facilitate continued improvements in the Rockaway Beach district and promote infill development emphasizing active ground-floor and visitor-oriented uses and links to the Quarry site.” See Item B.4 above regarding lack of project details demonstrating how the proposed site would be linked to Rockaway Beach; as such the proposal is found inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy LU-I-26, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy LU-I-26.

11. LD-I-27 states, “Enhanced Visitor Node. Taking all site constraints into account, create a visitororiented commercial and hospitality node at Rockaway Beach and on developable portions of the Rockaway Quarry site. A key component of this strategy would be to pursue a boutique or high end/resort-oriented hotel and supporting tourist-oriented shopping and dining opportunities.” As the project proposes only residential uses, and no visitor-oriented commercial and/or hospitality uses, it is inconsistent with this policy.

12. Table 2-3 provides development capacity for Non-Residential Development under the Plan’s land use designations and identifies the Rockaway Quarry Site at a total of 448,400 square feet of new non-residential square feet at buildout. As the project proposes approximately 1,214,100 square feet of residential development, and 0 square feet of non-residential development, it is inconsistent with this Table.

13. LD-I-34 (states, “Waste Water Treatment Capacity. Continue to monitor wastewater generation ratesso decision-makers are aware of the impacts on the treatment plant from new development, and plan for additional capacity in advance of projected need.” A Sewer Capacity Study, Preliminary Sewer Plan and modeling will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-23, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-23.

8.e
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 11 of 12 ends

14. LD-I-38 states, “Public Services for Development. Development shall only be approved if it can be shown that it can be accommodated by adequate and sustainable public services (including in terms of water, sewer, and circulation) without any significant impacts to coastal resources.” Various studies, including a Sewer Capacity study, Preliminary Sewer Plan, and a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project can be accommodated by adequate and sustainable public services without any significant impacts to coastal resources, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

15. PR-G-1 states, “Coastal Access and Recreational Opportunities. Provide maximum coastal access and recreational opportunities for all people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse, including access at each point identified on Figure 3-1. As discussed in Item B.4, regarding comments related to coastal access and recreation, from the limited details provided in the plan set, it is not clear how the project provides coastal access and recreational opportunities. Thus, the proposal is found to be inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-G-8, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-G-8.

16. PR-I-2 states, “New Development and Coastal Access. Require that new development along the coastline provide public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast, and be designed to minimize impacts to public coastal access and recreation. Ensure that impacts are mitigated through the dedication of access or trail easements or the provision of improvements to other public access points. The City may grant exceptions to this requirement where public access would pose a safety risk or threat to fragile resources, or where adequate access exists nearby.” As discussed above under Item B.4., the submittal materials lack details and are internally inconsistent regarding the project’s proposed Public Open Space and Recreation plan component. There are two parking lots proposed along the eastern property line across from the eastern development area, as well as a small parking lot proposed across from the INDIGENOUS LAND RESERVATION, TO BE DETERMINED (NOT IN SCOPE) on Sheet G1.02 but none are noted to specify whether they are proposed as private parking, public parking or both. Should these parking areas, or portions of, be made available to the public, there is no associated detail on the proposed connectivity of how the public would subsequently obtain access to the shoreline and along the coast. Identification of roads and paths as public or private, and delineation of existing and proposed improvements is not included in the materials submitted. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposed project is inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-38, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-38.

8.e
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 12 of 13 ends

17. PR-I-4 states, “Maintenance of Public Coastal Access. Require a public or private entity to be responsible for required public access ways. Until such an entity agrees to be responsible for liability and maintenance of such access ways, they are not required to be open for public use.

Dedicated public access ways should be designed to provide views as well as access connections to or along the shore.” As discussed above under Item B.4., the submittal material lack details and are internally inconsistent regarding the project’s proposed Public Open Space and Recreation plan components, including trails. In addition, as noted above under Item B.16, the intent and dedication of proposed parking areas is not clear. Without these details and specifications, and the limited details provided in the plan set, it is not clear how public coastal access will be provided. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-40, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-40.

18. PR-I-19 states, “Rockaway Quarry. If a safe public route can be developed on the Quarry uplands, create coastal access along a new trail connecting Rockaway Beach with Mori Point, as part of a conservation proposal or new development.” As noted above under Items B.4, B.16 and B.17, the project plans are not clear regarding trails and coastal access. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-53, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-53.

19. PR-G-6 states, “Development of City Parks. Create and enhance neighborhood and pocket parks and plazas to provide access to local recreational space to all Pacifica residents.” As discussed above under Item B.4., the submittal material lack details and are internally inconsistent regarding the project’s proposed Public Open Space and Recreation plan component, including the proposed “Indigenous People Node, Size and Location TBD”. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-G-1, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-G-1.

20. PR-G-10 states, “Open Space Preservation. Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety. The top priority areas for conservation are beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillsides areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas thatsupport critical wildlife habitat and endangered species.” Asthe project proposesresidential uses within areas of the project site designated as Conservation, as discussed in Items B.1 and B.2 above, it is inconsistent with this policy to preserve open space. Furhter, as discussed above under Item B.4., the submittal materials lack details and are internally inconsistent regarding the project’s proposed Public Open Space and Recreation plan component. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent

8.e
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 13 of 14 ends

with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-G-5, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-G-5.

21. PR-1-31 states, “Parks as Part of Future Development. Create future public spaces, accessible to the community, as part of the redevelopment of publicly-owned sites and of larger privatelyowned sites, including the Rockaway Quarry site, the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and the Milagra Canyon site.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity on the details of how the project proposes to specifically implement the project plan statements of “PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION” and provide public space and trails. Without these details and specifications and from the limited details provided in the plan set, it is not clear how the project intends to create future public space. Thus, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy.

22. PR-I-27 states, “Fees and Time Restrictions. Ensure that public beaches and parks in the Coastal Zone are free to access or maintain lower-cost user fees and parking fees, and minimize parking lot and beach curfews to the extent feasible in order to maximize public access and recreation opportunities.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity on the details of how the project proposes to specifically implement the project plan statements of “PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION” and provide public space and trails. Identification of roads and paths as public or private is not provided. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy.

23. PR-I-28 states, “Park Land Dedication or In-Lieu Fees. For new land divisions and residential development, continue to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu feesto provide park land at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity on the details of how the project proposes to specifically implement the project plan statements of “PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION” and provide public space and trails. In addition, identification of roads and paths as public or private is not provided.

Without these details and specifications, and the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-1, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-1.

24. PR-I-29 states, “Park Development to Meet Park Standards. Develop new parksin a timely manner using in-lieu fees or land dedicated as part of new development, to ensure that Citywide park and recreation space is available to the community at a ratio of 6.3 acres per 1,000 residents by 2040.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity on the details of how the project proposes to specifically implement the project plan statements of “PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION” and provide public space and trails. Identification of roads and paths as public or private is not provided. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited

8.e
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 14 of 15 ends

details provided in the plan set, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-2, and thus the project may be inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-2.

25. PR-I-31 states, “Parks as Part of Future Development. Create future public spaces, accessible to the community, as part of the redevelopment of publicly-owned sites and of larger privatelyowned sites, including the Rockaway Quarry site, the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and the Milagra Canyon site.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity on the details of how the project proposes to specifically implement the project plan statements of “PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION” and provide public space and trails. Further, it is not clear which roads are public or private and what public access will be provided.. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-9, and thus the project may be inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-9.

26. PR-G-11 states, “Trail System Expansion. Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 3-3, and to enhance and augment California Coastal Trail connections and connectivity”.

Figure 3-3: Trail System denotes a proposed trail or trail improvements within the project site that extends from the site’s southern property boundary to its northern property boundary with proposed connection to the existing trail in Mori Point (GGNRA) at the project’s site northern boundary. However, as noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity and are inconsistent regarding the details of how the proposed trail improvements will be implemented. Further, the delineation of proposed pathway improvements and public access easements to trails and/or multi-use paths is not clear. As the plans do not include sufficient detail or clarity showing how the propose new trail or trail improvements, connect with the existing Mori Point trail, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-G-7, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OCG-7.

27. PR-I-33 states, “New Segments of California Coastal Trail in Pacifica. Create new trail segments through Rockaway Quarry uplands and the Headlands as part of development or as separate Coastal Trail initiatives.” However, as noted above under Item B.4., the application materialslack specificity and are inconsistent regarding the details of how the proposed trail improvements will be implemented. Further, the delineation of proposed pathway improvements and public access easements to trails and/or multi-use paths is not clear. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is found inconsistent with this

8.e
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 15 of 16 ends

policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-24, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OC-I-24.

28. PR-I-43 states, “Signage and Wayfinding. Develop the overall image and accessibility of Pacifica’s natural assets, through a program of consistent and attractive signage for the trail system. • Provide wayfinding signage along all on-street portions of the trail system; at junctions of off-street trails; and at trailheads.
• Provide interpretive signage to identify landforms visible from viewpoints; provide information about the natural environment and sensitive species; information about historical and cultural points of interest; information about unique features of Pacifica; and other subjects.

Each trail should have an identity as part of the Pacifica trail system (e.g., Trail 1— Coastal Trail). Where routes are shared with the California Coastal Trail or the Bay Area Ridge Trail, these should also be identified.

While Sheets SI.10 and SI-30 include some signage location renderings, there does not appear to be signage proposed along the portions of what is noted in text as a “propose new trail”. Further, as noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity and are inconsistent regarding the details of how the proposed trail improvements will be implemented. Further, the delineation of proposed pathway improvements and public access easements to trails and/or multi-use paths is not clear.

Without these signage or wayfinding details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy OC-I-25, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy OCI-25.

29. PR-G-12 states, “Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. Establish trails, bike routes and pedestrian amenities connecting neighborhoods to major shopping and public facility destinations, and fill in gaps in the existing network.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity and are inconsistent regarding the details of how the proposed trail improvements will be implemented. Further, the delineation of proposed pathway improvements and public access easements to trails and/or multi-use paths is not clear. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-G-11, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-G-11.

30. PR-G-13 states, “Recreational Access. Provide recreational access to coastal resources and public open space in keeping with Pacifica’s natural environment, with linksto regional trails and bicycle corridors.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity and are

8.e
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 16 of 17 ends

inconsistent regarding the details of how the proposed trail improvements will be implemented.

Further, the delineation of proposed pathway improvements and public access easements to trails and/or multi-use paths is not clear.

Without these details and specifications and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-G-13, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-G-13.

31. PR-G-14 “Mobility for All Users. Create a safe and attractive walking environment accessible for all users, particularly persons with disabilities, seniors, and younger residents and visitors.” As noted above under Item B.4., the application materials lack specificity and are inconsistent regarding the details of how the proposed trail improvements will be implemented. Further, the delineation of proposed pathway improvements and public access easements to trails and/or multi-use paths is not clear. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed street improvements, including sidewalks, was not included. Without these details and specifications and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-G-14, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-G-14.

32. PR-I-45 states, “Pedestrian-Oriented Street Improvements. Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations to improve pedestrian-oriented safety and comfort. Priority locations for pedestrian-oriented design improvements include:
• Pedestrian Priority Areas (including Manor, Sharp Park, Vallemar/Fairway Park, and Linda Mar PPAs,) which include mixed use and higher-intensity areas • Streets that are part of Pacifica’s proposed trail system improvements; • Streets adjacent to schools; and
• Locations where pedestrian-automobile collisions have occurred.

Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. Various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project is providing pedestrian-oriented street improvements implementing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-I-26, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-I-26.

8.e
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 17 of 18 ends

33. PR-I-50 states, “Bicycle Parking Requirements for New Development. Continue to require bicycle parking facilities in new high density residential, mixed use, and non-residential development.” Sheets A2.01 and A2.02 include areas noted as “bike room” on the proposed floor plan and within the enclosed garage areas, but no further detail isincluded such as how many spaces are provided and if such spaces are intended for short- or long-term use. No exterior bicycle parking spaces are included in the materials submitted. In addition, various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine how the project is providing bicycle parking requirements, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-I-40, and thus the project is potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-I-40.

34. PR-G-18 states, “Serve All Users. Plan, design, build, and maintain transportation improvements to support safe and convenient access for all users with priority for “complete streets” projects that facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use wherever possible.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. In addition, various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required asthe City continuesto processthis application. As noted above under Item B.4., the plans regarding paths, delineation of existing and proposed improvements and easements to trails and/or multi-use paths are not clear. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project is serving all users pursuant to this policy, the project is potentially inconsistent.

35. PR-G-19 states, “Plan, design, and build transportation improvements so that they respect the surrounding environment.” Labeling ofstreets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. In addition, variousstudies, including a Transportation Study, will be required asthe City continuesto process this application to study the transportation improvements. As there is not enough information to determine if the transportation improvements will respect the surrounding environment, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-G-6, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-G-6.

36. PR-I-56 states, “Complete Streets in the Project Development Process. Incorporate complete streets concepts at each stage of the development processfor projects affecting the right-of-way, including the following:
• As part of design review, both at Phase I and Phase II, require documentation of how the “routine accommodation” of bicyclists and pedestrians has been satisfied in planning and design.;

8.e
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 18 of 19 ends

• During project review and approval, ensure that the objectives and purpose are consistent with MTC directives on Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation; • For projects subject to MTC’s Resolution 3765, as amended, work with MTC to secure approval of the Complete Streets checklist and submittal to MTC of all required documents. Integrating Complete Streets considerations should require only minor additions to normal design, acquisitions, and approval guidelines.

Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. In addition, various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application, to analyze the street and transportation improvements. . As there is not enough information to determine if the project is meeting Complete Street standards, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-I-3, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-I-3.

37. PR-I-59 states, “Block Size and Maximum Street Spacing. For new development at the Quarry site, require streetsto be designed to maximize connectivity for automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians, with blocks between 200 and 600 feet in length. Provide mid-block pedestrian connections where blocks exceed 500 feet in length. The intent of these standards is to prevent development of introverted neighborhoods, provide flexibility in circulation, and promote access for bicyclists and pedestrians.”
Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements, was not included. In addition, various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project is meeting block size and maximum street spacing, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-I-6, and thusthe project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-I-6.

38. PR-I-63 states, “Additional Pedestrian Facilities on Large Sites. Enhance the pedestrian network with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings as part of higher-intensity redevelopment of large sites.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was not included. Identification of roads and paths as public or private, and delineation of existing and proposed improvements and easements was also not provided. In addition, various studies, including a Transportation Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the

8.e
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 19 of 20 ends

project is providing additional pedestrian facilities on this large site, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-I-28, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-I-28.

39. PR-I-64 states, “Universal Design. Require all pedestrian facilities to be ADA compliant and accessible to persons with disabilities.” Labeling of streets on plan sets, exhibits, and details, identification of roads and paths as public or private, delineations of existing and proposed street improvements (including but not limited to curbs and sidewalks, and easements, was also not included. Identification of roads and paths as public or private, and delineation of existing and proposed improvements and easements was not provided. In addition. variousstudies, including a Transportation Study, will be required asthe City continuesto processthis application. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project is providing universal design, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-I-30, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-I-30.

40. The LCP “Level of Service Standards”, on page 3-35 states, “In Pacifica’s Coastal Zone, the most critical congestion occurs on SR 1, where certain intersections and roadway segments currently operate at LOS E or F during peak periods. The City’s policy is to limit further deterioration of traffic conditions by evaluating the significance of impacts of new development on highway congestion, and requiring mitigation to maintain, if possible, LOS D for City streets and the LOS standards set by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for roadway segments included in the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).” The development site is located within the City’s Coastal Zone, thus subject to this policy. The submitted Trip Generation Estimate, prepared by W-Trans, dated July 11, 2025, does not include an LOS Analysis.

A transportation study will be required to determine whether the project is consistent with this policy. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets the LOS standards in this policy, the project is potentially inconsistent.

41. Regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM), PR-G-25 states, “Support TDM strategies to reduce congestion and single-occupant vehicle travel” and PR-I-74 states, “Transportation Demand Management Measures. Require transportation demand management (TDM) consistent with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and monitoring plans to ensure trip reduction targets are met or exceeded as conditions of approval for development projects that exceed the CMP threshold for impacts to the transportation network. Require TDM measures for development projects below the CMP threshold whenever feasible, but do not require a monitoring plan for these smaller projects.” The submitted “Trip Generation Estimate for the Coastal Coast Residences Project in Pacifica” estimates a daily total of 6,981 daily trips. The City/County Association of Governments San Mateo County (C/CAG), Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policy requires that any new development anticipated to generate at least 100 average daily trips (ADT) is subject to the TDM Policy and must therefore complete a TDM Checklist and implement associated measures to mitigate traffic impacts. No TDM program or plan was submitted as part of the application materials but will be required as the City continues

8.e
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 20 of 21 ends

to process the application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project is consistent with the TDM policy, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. These policies are also found in General Plan policies CI-G-18 and CI-I-50, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policies CI-G-18 and CI-I-50.

42. PR-G-26 states, “Private Parking. Ensure adequate off-street parking in all new development.” The application is not clear on whether the project parking is private or public. While there are two parking lots proposed along the eastern property line across from the eastern development area, as well as a small parking lot proposed across from the INDIGENOUS LAND RESERVATION, TO BE DETERMINED (NOT IN SCOPE) on Sheet G1.02, none are noted to specify whether they are proposed as private parking, public parking or both. As there is not enough information to determine what private parking is being provided, the project may be inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-G-20, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-G-20.

43. PR-G-27 states, “Public and Visitor Parking. Facilitate beach and recreational use by providing safe and well-located public parking. When appropriate and feasible, distribute parking areas throughout the Coastal Zone to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.” The application is not clear on whether the project parking is private or public. While there are two parking lots proposed along the eastern property line across from the eastern development area, as well as a small parking lot proposed across from the INDIGENOUS LAND RESERVATION, TO BE DETERMINED (NOT IN SCOPE) on Sheet G1.02, none are noted to specify whether they are proposed as private parking, public parking or both. As there is not enough information to determine what public parking is being provided, the project may be inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CI-G-21, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CI-G-21.

44. ER-G-1 states, “Water Quality. Support the improvement of Pacifica’s water quality, including both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management,stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunitiesto reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design, nor does it use the 4 percent method to design bioretention areas, nor details on wetland restoration areas.

Demonstration of approval of outside agenciesto work in the creek will also be required. Asthere is not enough information at this time to determine if the project meets this policy regarding water quality, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G-1, and thusthe project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-1.

8.e
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 21 of 22 ends

45. ER-G-2 states, “Maintain Creeks as a Resource. Ensure both access to and ecological functionality of the creeks in Pacifica.“ As work is proposed in Calera Creek, additional review by outside agencies will be required. In addition, various environmentalstudies, including biologicalstudies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information at thistime to determine if the project will maintain creeks as a resource, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G3, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-3.

46. ER-G-4 states, “Enable natural processes to occur on developed sites, and utilize these processes to enhance the built environment and users’ experiences of it.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design, nor does it use the 4 percent method to design bioretention areas, nor details on wetland restoration areas. Further, demonstration of approval of outside agencies to work in the creek will be required. Lastly, various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze environmental impacts. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project will enable natural processes to occur, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G-4, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-4.

47. ER-I-I states, “Creek Protection and Restoration. Maintain, protect, and restore Pacifica’s creeks, including San Pedro, Rockaway, Calera, Sanchez, and Milagra creeks, as environmental and aesthetic resources. Actions will include, but are not limited to: • Continuing restoration efforts along San Pedro Creek to improve conditions for steelhead by removing obstacles to fish passage, placing rock weirsto facilitate fish passage, and by monitoring the effectiveness of these projects; • Partnering with local organizations, such as the San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, Go Native, the Pacifica Land Trust, and others, on restoration efforts; • Exploring opportunities to collaborate with other agencies and organizations on stream restoration and riparian habitat restoration along Sanchez and Calera creeks; • Enforcing restrictions on the planting of invasive species near creek areas; • Identifying and working with property owners to take advantage of unique opportunities where human active use (e.g., through trail development) would enhance creek appreciation without disrupting ecological function; • Requiring a minimum of 100 feet buffers from the top of creek banks, or from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, where it exists, whichever is further, for development proposed adjacent to creeks, in keeping with City regulations and Best Management Practices. The 100-foot buffer may be reduced by the minimum necessary to avoid a taking (for private development), provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated. The 100 foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services (for public development, such as burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines, and emergency repairs),

8.e
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 22 of 23 ends

provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated, that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, and no less than 50 feet in any case, and provided that creek resource impacts are avoided as much as possible, and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated, all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City and applicable resource agencies, except that the 50-foot minimum shall not apply to low intensity public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services. • Permitted uses within buffer zones are limited to uses dependent on the resources within these areas and their buffer zones (i.e., habitat management and restoration, scientific research and educational activities, and low-intensity public access and recreation), Temporary disruption (e.g. less than six months), as determined by a qualified biologist in consideration of on-site specific biological resources, for the construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance of existing or newly permitted facilities or structures is allowed if there are no feasible alternatives, the disruption area is restored to its predisruption state or better within one yearfrom the initial point of impact and there is no significant ground disturbance.” As work is proposed in Calera Creek, additional review by outside agencies will be required. Details on wetland restoration areas, 100-year floodplain and a 35-foot creek setback from top of bank are not included in the materials submitted. In addition, various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information at this time to determine if the project will comply with creek protection and restoration requirements, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-1, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-1.

48. ER-I-4 states, “Wetlands Preservation. Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Continue to require formal delineations of wetlands subject to State or federal regulations prior to any proposed development project where potential wetlands have been identified. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.” Details on wetland restoration areas not included in application materials submitted.

Various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to processthis application and will analyze wetlandsimpacts. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project addresses this policy regarding wetland preservation, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-4, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-4.

49. ER-I-7 states, “Maintain Functional Capacity of Wetlands. Ensure that any diking, filling, or dredging in existing wetlands maintains or enhances their functional capacity. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife or as defined by the Coastal Commission shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, or nature study.” Details on wetland restoration areas not included in application materials and as

8.e
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 23 of 24 ends

such, the project may be inconsistent with this policy. In addition various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze wetland impacts. As there is not enough information to determine if the project will maintain the functional capacity of wetlands, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-7, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-7.

50. ER-I-10 (and General Plan policy CO-I-10) states, “Stormwater Discharge. Ensure compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit, the Construction General Permit and the Construction Dewatering Permit, which regulate stormwater discharge from new and existing development. These permits are established by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. They require that new development incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Green Infrastructure Plan requirements in site design, construction, and management to minimize storm water runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize infiltration.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design, nor does it use the 4 percent method to design bioretention areas, nor details on wetland restoration areas. Demonstration of approval of outside agenciesto work in the creek will be required. Various additionalstudies will be required asthe City continuesto processthis application. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding stormwater discharge the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-10, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-10.

51. ER-1-12 states, “Infrastructure and Water Quality. Ensure that the design and construction of new infrastructure elements does not contribute to stream bank or hillside erosion or creek or wetland siltation, and incorporates site design and source control BMPs, construction phase BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize impacts to water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.” A Sewer Capacity Study and Preliminary Sewer Plan, and potentially a Hydrology/Hydraulics, Floodplain/Flood Hazard Analysis, Water Quality and/or a Water Supply Assessment, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine the project’s impact on infrastructure and water quality at this time, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-12, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-12.

52. ER-1-13 states, “Green Infrastructure. Require that new development projects incorporate inclusion of low impact development drainage design into storm drain infrastructure on public

8.e
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 24 of 25 ends

and private lands, including streets, roads, storm drains, parking lots, building roofs, and other storm drain infrastructure elements.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design, nor does it use the 4 percent method to design bioretention areas, nor details on wetland restoration areas. The materials submitted do not include details on existing and proposed utilities and how the proposed project connects so the existing systems. Various studies will be required as the City continues to processthis application to analyze potential environmental impacts. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets the City’s Green Infrastructure requirements, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

53. ER-I-13 states, “Erosion Control. Manage erosion in the Planning Area, particularly in watershed areas, through on-site erosion control. Construction projects will be required to use appropriate erosion prevention techniques, sediment control measures, and best management practices in accordance with City Specifications and General Conditions of Approval and the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.” The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does not confirm if there are any known nearby sources ofsoil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. Additional studies will be required as the City continues to process this application. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project meetsthe erosion control measures, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-13, and thus the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy with General Plan policy CO-I-13.

54. ER-I-15 states, “Minimize Site Disturbance. Require use of best practices during development design and construction to preserve natural resources, such as soil, trees, native plants, and permeable surfaces.” The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describer infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does not confirm if there are any known nearby sources ofsoil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. The submitted project materials do not acknowledge the tree protection standards in Section 4-12.11 of the PMC, nor do they include plans for protecting individual and groups of protected trees by installing a five (5) or six (6) high chain link fencing. In addition, various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze impacts to natural resources. As there is not enough information to determine if the project will minimize site disturbance, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-14, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-14.

8.e
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 25 of 26 ends

55. ER-I-16 states, “Reduce Impervious Surfaces. Enable natural drainage by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on a development site, whenever feasible. Techniques that help accomplish this objective: • Designing development projectsto share driveways; • Placing parking lots under buildings, whenever feasible; and • Using permeable paving materials on walkways and driveways, whenever feasible.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design. Asthere is not enough information to determine if the project reduces impervious surfaces, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-15, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-15.

56. ER-I-17 states, “On-site Stormwater Management. Continue to require all small projects and detached single-family home projects, as defined under the NPDES Permit, to incorporate site design measures that facilitate groundwater recharge and natural hydrological processes, allowing stormwater to infiltrate the ground on-site and/or be collected for reuse in landscaping and designated to on-site stormwater detention facilities. Techniques for on-site stormwater management include use of: • “Rain gardens” or bioretention areas in yards, parks, and parking lots; • Landscaped drainage swales along roadways; • Green roofs; • Permeable pavers for walkways and parking areas; • Rain barrels for harvesting runoff from rooftops; • Tree box filters for on-street filtration; • Parking areas that direct stormwater flow into vegetated areas; • Grading that lengthens flow paths and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak flow rate; and • Cisterns or sub-surface retention facilities that capture rainwater for use in irrigation and non-potable uses.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design. Various additional studies will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding onsite stormwater management, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-16, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-16.

57. ER-I-18 states, “Prevent Contaminated Runoff. Ensure that new parking lots and commercial development incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oil, grease, solvents, battery acid, coolant, gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants from the site. Runoff from areasserving vehicle traffic, structures, landscaping, loading areas, repair and maintenance bays, fueling areas, vehicle/equipment wash areas, outdoor material storage areas, and waste storage areas should be prevented or minimized.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design. The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does

8.e
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 26 of 27 ends

not confirm if there are any known nearby sources of soil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. Additional studies will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze these project impacts. As there is not enough information to determine if the project will prevent contaminated runoff, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-17, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-17.

58. ER-I-20 states, “Sanitary Sewer Discharge. Ensure that discharges of treated wastewater from the Calera Creek Wastewater Recycling Plant continue to comply with the Sanitary Sewer System Permit. The City will manage the release of treated wastewater as part of habitat restoration along Calera Creek, and pursue the use of recycled water for irrigation and other uses.” A Sewer Capacity Study, Preliminary Sewer Plan and additional studies will be required as the City continues to process this application. Demonstration of approval of outside agencies to work in the creek will also be required. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding sanitary sewer discharge, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-25, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-25.

59. ER-G-5 states, “Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat. Habitat can be protected by allowing very limited or no development, by identifying habitat areas astop priorities for permanent conservation, and by managing public land to ensure species protection. Critical Habitat in the Coastal Zone is considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).” Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding wildlife and critical habitat, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G-7, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-7.

60. ER-G-6 states, “Coastal Environment and Special Status Communities. Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and special status communities, particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs. Prohibit development in coastal dunes to preserve dune formations, vegetation, and wildlife habitats. Prevent overuse in dune areas by mechanismssuch asrestricting parking and directing pedestrian traffic through signage and sand fencing to areas capable of sustaining such use. Prohibit motor vehicles in dune areas except for emergency purposes, and prohibit motor vehiclesin non-dune beach areas except for emergency and essential maintenance purposes and where previously coastal permitted. Special status communities in the Coastal Zone are considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).” Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to

8.e
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 27 of 28 ends

process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding coastal environment and special status communities, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G-8, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-8.

61. ER-G-7 states, “Creeks and Riparian Areas as Habitat. Protect year-round and intermittent creeks and their riparian habitats”. Various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding creeks and riparian habitat, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G-9, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-9.

62. ER-G-8 states, “Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect other potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), High Value or High Habitat Value areas, and Wildlife Movement Corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values.” Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding other environmentally sensitive areas, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-G-11, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-G-11.

63. ER-G-9 states, “Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.” Various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding open space conservation and habitat protection, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

64. ER-I-21 states, “Protection of Biological Resources with New Development. Protect sensitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures: 1) The City should discourage development and/or buildout in critical habitat of special status species during the development review process in a manner that is consistent with LD-I-5 to avoid takings. 2) Pre-construction plant and wildlife surveys: Project applicants shall engage a qualified biologist to conduct presence/absence biological surveys for sensitive plant and wildlife species prior to construction adjacent to or within identified special status communities and other sensitive areas identified in Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan. If special status species are identified, the qualified biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and establish no-disturbance buffers around avian nests, bat roosts, and sensitive plants to avoid disturbance and direct impactsto these resources during construction. If no specialstatus

8.e
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 28 of 29 ends

species are detected during surveys, then construction-related activities may proceed. Nesting birds, in particular, are protected by two means; they receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and nesting raptors (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) are protected under the State Fish and Game Code, §3503.5. 3) Require biological resource assessments be conducted prior to approval for any development within 300 feet of creeks, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas shown on Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan. 4) Require on-site monitoring of biological resources by a qualified biologist throughout the duration of construction activity. 5) Require compensatory mitigation by means of habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement; for the loss of any critical habitat and/or special status communities. Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding protection of biological species with new development, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-26, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I26.

65. ER-I-22 states “Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Protect all sensitive species with defined or potential habitat by establishing specific habitat survey requirements, development limitations, and other requirements to mitigate potential impacts.” Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding protection of ESHA, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

66. ER-I-24 states, “Management of ESHA and Wetlands. If the area qualifies as an ESHA or wetlands under the California Coastal Act, the following regulations apply: • No new development shall be allowed within ESHA with the exception of resource dependent uses (i.e. habitat management and restoration, scientific research and educational activities, and low-intensity public access and recreation) that can be demonstrated to have no significant disruption of habitat values. • Buffer areas shall be established around all ESHA and wetlands, providing a minimum of 100 feet, and may be expanded as needed to account for feeding, breeding, nesting, and other habitat requirements. However, the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by the minimum distance necessary to avoid a taking (for private development), provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated. The 100-foot buffer may also be reduced by the minimum distance necessary, but no less than 50 feet, to provide required incidental public services (for public development), such as burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines, maintenance of trails and property adjacent to rights of way, and emergency repairs), provided that that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, and provided that ESHA or wetland resource impacts are avoided as much as possible, and unavoidable impacts

8.e
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 29 of 30 ends

commensurately mitigated, as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City and applicable resource agencies, except that the 50-foot minimum shall not apply to low intensity public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services. • Development shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would degrade adjacent habitat areas, taking into account drainage, vegetation, topography, and other considerations. • Alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation, impervious surfaces, noise, light, and glare shall be minimized as much as possible.” Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding management of ESHA and wetlands, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-24, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-24.

67. ER-I-25 states, “Fencing. Any fencing or barrierslocated within riparian ESHAs or wildlife corridors shall permit the free passage of wildlife.” Since no biological study, or mapped ESHAs have been submitted, it is unknown at this time if the proposed retaining walls on Sheet L1.01 is located within an ESHA or wildlife corridor, and assuch, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy.

Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHA, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meetsthis policy regarding fencing, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-29, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-29.

68. ER-I-26 states, “Ensure that new development is sited and designed to minimize the need for fuel modification and vegetation clearance in order to avoid or minimize the disturbance or destruction of habitat and existing hydrology while still providing for fire safety as necessitated by the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program. Prohibit new development that would require fuel modification within ESHAs”. Various environmental studies, including biological studies and verification of ESHAs, will be required as the City continues to process this application. In addition, a Vegetation Management Plan will be required. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding fuel modification and vegetation clearance, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-30, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-30.

69. ER-I-27 states, “Monitoring Requirements. Require a Restoration and Monitoring Proposal for any proposed habitat restoration or mitigation. The Proposal should describe the methods and practices to be employed, and include: • A clear statement of the goals of the restoration or

8.e
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 30 of 31 ends

mitigation for all habitat types; • Sampling of reference habitat, with reporting of resultant data; • Designation of a qualified biologist as the Restoration or Mitigation Manager responsible for all phases of the restoration; • A specific grading plan, if the topography must be altered; • A specific erosion control plan, if soil or other substrate will be disturbed during restoration; • A weed eradication plan designed to eradicate existing weeds and control future invasion by exotic species; • A planting plan based on the natural habitat type; • An irrigation plan that describes the method and timing of watering and ensures removal of watering infrastructure by the end of the monitoring period; • An interim monitoring plan with performance goals, assessment methods, and a schedule; and • A final monitoring plan to determine whether the restoration has been successful.” Various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding monitoring requirements, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-32, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-32.

70. ER-I-31 states, “Invasive Plant Species. Prohibit the use of invasive plant species (i.e., any California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)-listed species with a status of high or moderate, or identified as locally-threatening under the limited, alert, or watch status).” The Tree Planting Plan on Sheet L3.00 does not specify if any of the proposed trees or understory schedule are invasive species or not, and as such, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy. In addition, various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application and will analyze project consistency with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-36, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-36.

71. ER-G-11 states, “Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.” The submitted project materials do not acknowledge the tree protection standards in Section 4-12.11 of the PMC, nor do they include plans for protecting individual and groups of protected trees by installing a five (5) or six (6) high chain link fencing. In addition, various environmental studies, including biological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application and will analyze impacts to trees. As there is not enough information to determine if the project will conserve trees and encourage native forestation and appropriate plantings, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

72. ER-I-42 states, “Resource Impact Mitigation. Ensure that new development analyzes and avoids potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources by: • Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive; • Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any

8.e
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 31 of 32 ends

ground disturbance for all development in areas of historic or archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures as a condition of project approval—such as avoidance, preservation in place, and excavation,—to reduce or avoid impacts. In the event that historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that may be used as guidelines.” Various environmental studies, including cultural resource, historic and archaeological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding resource impact mitigation, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-68, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I68.

73. ER-I-43 states, “Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribesto protectrecorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.” Various environmental studies, including cultural resource, historic and archaeological studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding Native American sites,the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CO-I-70, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CO-I-70.

74. ER-G-16 states, “Viewsfrom Scenic Routes. Ensure that viewshedsfrom Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road are preserved and enhanced. These views are an essential part of Pacifica’s identity.” Development on the Western Parcelsituated on the project site hillside and ridgeline as depicted on Sheets G0.04 – G0.06 situates the proposed buildings to be visually prominent from the western, eastern,southern, and northern vantage points. The proposed new residential buildings impact view and do not preserve or enhance viewshed from Highway 1 and Sharp Park. Thus the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-G-7, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-G-7.

75. ER-I-44 states, “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;

8.e
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 32 of 33 ends

• Design structures so that they follow contours and limit their downslope exposure; and • Use landscaping to screen and integrate buildings with the natural environment.

As noted in Item B.75 above, buildings are sited on the hillside. The renderings on Sheets G0.04 – G0.06 do not appear to visual screen the proposed new buildings. As such, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I11, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-11.

76. ER-I-45 states, “Protection of Ridgelines. Protect visually prominent ridgelines from residential and commercial development. Local accessroads and trails may be allowed on visually prominent ridgelines provided they follow contours, minimize grading, and are unobtrusive in their design.” As noted in Items B.75. above, the residential buildings are all sited on the hillside and visually prominent. Additionally, residential uses are proposed with heights varying between approximately 20 – 91 feet on the project site ridgelines. Thus, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I-12, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-12.

77. ER-I-48 states, “Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Landforms. Ensure that negative visual impacts resulting from new development in the Coastal Zone are minimized. In areas characterized by bluffs and landforms. Strategies to implement this policy include:
• Prohibiting development on slopes in excess of 35 percent and highly visible tops of prominent landforms.
• Requiring blufftop development to minimize impacts on the view from the ocean and beach below by implementing a setback from the bluff edge. • Requiring that development be clustered and contoured into the existing slope; and • Requiring that new development be scaled and designed to be subordinate to landforms in the Coastal Zone.

As discussed under Item B.75, the residential units are sited on the hillsides and visibility on the top of the bluff from the western, eastern, southern and northern vantage points. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I-15, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-15.

78. ER-I-49 states, “Minimize Impacts of Coastal Development on Vegetation. Continue to require that disturbance to vegetation be minimized in new development and that graded areas be promptly replanted with native vegetation.” Sheet L0.04 indicates a significant number of trees proposed to be removed. Neither the plan set, nor the submitted Arborist Report by WRA, dated September 2025, specifies the exact quantity/amount of other vegetation proposed to be removed as result of the proposed development. Due to the significant number of trees to be removed and the lack of details provided, the proposal may be inconsistent with this policy.

8.e
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 33 of 34 ends

Additionally, future biological studies, will be required to determine whether the proposed replanting plan (Sheet L3.00) is adequate native vegetation under this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I-16, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-16.

79. ER-I-51 states, “Rockaway Quarry Site. Development on the Quarry site should be prioritized in the “flats” and should connect with the adjacent Rockaway Beach district. Development in areas of the Quarry site that would impact the visual qualities of surrounding hillsides or ridgelines should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible.” Development on the Western parcel, which is a significant portion of the overall proposed development, is not situated on the “flats” and could impact the visual quality of the surrounding hillsides and ridgelines. See also Item B.4 regarding open space and trails. As such, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I-18, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-18.

80. ER-I-52 states, “Trail Design on Coastal Headlands and Bluffs. Develop new trails on Pedro Point Headlands, Aramai Point, the Quarry site uplands, and the Northern Coastal Bluffs in such a way that native vegetation is protected by limiting pedestrians to designated trails and preventing access by motorized vehicles.” As noted in Item B.4 above, there is a lack of specificity regarding the proposed new trail. Without these details and specifications, and from the limited details provided in the plan set, the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I-19, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CDI-19.

81. ER-I-53 states, “Underground Utilities. Continue to require underground utilities in all new development. New developmentsshould include undergrounding existing overhead utilities along each project frontage. Within coastal view corridors, place lines underground or located there so they do not break the view line of a roadway vista.” Existing and proposed utilities such as water, gas, electric, telephone and cable, and how the proposed project connectsto the existing systems is not included in the information submitted, nor is there information detailing that all proposed new utilities are installed underground from the nearest joint pole or box. As there is not enough information to determine if the project will meet underground utilities provisions, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

82. ER-I-60 states, “High-Quality Design at Key Points. Ensure that new development directly adjacent to Highway 1 in West and East Park helps to create a strong image of Pacifica's cultural and civic core, and that new development in the Rockaway Quarry site has a visual quality that enhances the natural setting and draws travelers in from the highway.” As noted in Item B.76. above, the siting of the proposed residential buildings is on the hillsides. Additionally, as discussed in Items

8.e
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 34 of 35 ends

B.1 and B.2 above, the proposed residential land use is inconsistent with the land use designations of Conservation and Visitor Serving Commercial. As such the proposed residential building designs are inherently inconsistent with this policy as it does not produce a visual quality consistent with its designated land uses. This policy is also found in General Plan policy CD-I-27, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-27.

83. NH-I-9 states, “Hillside Erosion Prevention. Encourage erosion prevention of hillside areas to maintain slope stability by revegetation. Other slope stability methods may be acceptable, consistent with this LCP.” And General Plan policy SA-I-7 states, “Erosion Prevention. Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by revegetation or other acceptable methods.” Variousstudies will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets the hillside erosion prevention measures, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-7, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-18.

84. NH-I-10 states, “Geotechnical Studies. Within the Coastal Zone and hillside areas, continue to require geotechnical site investigation for proposed development on sites located in any of the following areas, prior to allowing site development: • On slopes greater than 15 percent. • In areasshowing evidence of landslides or landslide potential. • In areasshowing evidence of ground shaking or earth movement. • Within 300 feet of a bluff edge in Coastal Vulnerability Zones. • Within sand dune areas. Geotechnical studies shall identify any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and a statement of the site’s suitability for the proposed development and whether or not it will be safe from geologic hazard for its anticipated life. The study shall identify net developable areas, if any, based on landslide or ground shaking potential and/or erosion risk. Impacts from the development, such as those resulting from increased water runoff, shall also be determined. Such studies must be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and are subject to review and approval by City staff. As detailed in CR-I-19, further technical reports may be required for applicable projects.” The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does not confirm if there are any known nearby sources ofsoil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. Additional studies will be required asthe City continuesto processthis application. Asthere is not enough information to determine ifthe projectmeets all the Geotechnical Study provisions, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-8, and thus the project is also inconsistent with General Plan policy CD-I-18.

85. NH-I-11 states, “Maintain Restrictions on Hazardous Areas. Continue enforcing the existing Coastal Zone Combining District and Hillside Preservation District regulations that restrict development in hazardous areas where access is impractical and areas prone to hillside and

8.e
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 35 of 36 ends

coastal erosion, landslides, seismic shaking, tsunami inundation, or flooding.” The proposed project is potentially inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Combining District and the Hillside Preservation District regulations that restrict development in hazardous areas. Forthcoming review is anticipated as it pertains to Zoning and Municipal Code requirements including zoning requirements in the Coastal Zone Combining District (Article 43) and Hillside Preservation District (Article 22.5). Therefore, the project may potentially be inconsistent with this policy. In addition, various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application and additional inconsistencies may be noted. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SAI-9, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-9.

86. NH-I-13 states, “Grading and Drainage Plans. Continue to require a grading and drainage plan for proposed development requiring a coastal development permit and a grading permit. The Plan should demonstrate how the project will maintain natural surface drainage and existing vegetation to the greatest extent feasible, by minimizing alteration of natural topography and removal of existing trees and vegetation; stabilizing cut-and-fill surfaces with native vegetation; restricting the movement of heavy equipment and machinery; and other means. Prohibit development-related grading and vegetation clearance on slopes steeper than 35 percent.

Driveways and utilities may be allowed in the case that there is no less environmentally damaging alternative for providing access to the building site.” Various environmental studies and peer review will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding grading and drainage plans, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-11, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-11.

87. NH-I-16 states, “Development in Coastal Zone. Continue to enforce provisions of the California Coastal Act requiring new development within the Coastal Zone to: • Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, or fire hazard; • Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs; and • Not violate required coastal resource setback provisions.” The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed. Details on the 100- year floodplain and a 35-foot creek setback from top of bank are not included in the materials submitted. No Vegetation Management Plan was submitted. In addition, future environmental review and studies may note inconsistencies. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets all the California Coastal Act provisions for new development, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-11, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-15.

8.e
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 36 of 37 ends

88. NH-G-2 states,” Development in Hazardous Areas. Site and design development in 100-year floodplains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risk without the need for armoring (e.g. flood damage prevention programs).” Details on wetland restoration areas, 100-year floodplain and a 35-foot creek setback from top of bank are not included in the materials submitted.

Therefore, the project may be subject to flooding. Various environmental studies will also be required as the City continues to process this application and will analyze potential hazards. As there is not enough information at this time to determine if the project will comply with development in hazardous areas, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-11, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-G-2.

89. NH-1-22 states, “NDPES Enforcement. Enforce NPDES permits, as well as the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, to mitigate potential flooding risks by slowing the release of stormwater from development sites into drainage channels.” The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) does not identify, nor discuss opportunitiesto reduce imperviousness and incorporate stormwater controls into the site and landscape design. Details on then 100- yearfloodplain and a 35-foot creek setback from top of bank are also not included in the materials submitted. Various additional studies will be required as the City continues to process this application and will analyze flooding risks. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding NPDES enforcement the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

90. NH-I-26 states, “Storm Drainage Impact Assessment. Require developers to provide an assessment of a project’s potential impacts on the local storm drainage system as part of the development review process. If development is found to have a negative impact on storm drainage, require applicable and effective mitigation measures,such asthe creation of permanent or temporary detention or retention basins, provision of additional landscaped areas and green roofs, installation of pump stations, and the use of permeable paving in driveways, walkways and parking areas.” Various environmental studies, including a storm drainage assessment as noted in this policy, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding storm drainage, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

91. NH-I-28 policy states,” Tsunami Inundation Zone. For new development in the tsunami inundation zone, require use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures above projected water levels, to mitigate impacts to people and structures.” Various studies and analyses will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze tsunami and flooding risks. As there is not enough information to determine if the project complies with the tsunami inundation zone requirements, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

8.e
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 37 of 38 ends

This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-26, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-26.

92. NH-I-40 states, “Rockaway Quarry Service. Ensure that any new development at the Rockaway Quarry site is adequately served by public infrastructure, including fire and police services.” Various studies, including a Sewer Capacity Study, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project would be adequately served by public infrastructure, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-100, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-100.

93. CR-G1 states, “Key Coastal Act Policies. The City of Pacifica adopts the following key policies derived from the Coastal Act to address coastal resilience:… PRC 30253. New development shall:
(1) minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard; and (2) assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs; and, The Coastal Resilience policies adopted herein are intended to achieve and are consistent with these key policies, subject to periodic updates as resource and development monitoring and program implementation may dictate.” From the materials submitted, 100-year floodplain, creek setbacks from top of bank, nor a Vegetation Management Plan are not included Various studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze geologic, hazards and other impacts, and will assist in determining whether the project is consistent with the aspects of this policy related to coastal resilience. As there is not enough information at this time, the project is potentially inconsistent with those aspects of the policy.

This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-G-4, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-G-4.

94. CR-I-2 states, “Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones. Development located in Coastal Vulnerability Zones may only be approved if such development, as measured over its full anticipated life, is sited, designed, and conditioned: a. to avoid, and where unavoidable, to minimize risks from coastal hazards to the maximum extent feasible; b. to avoid, and where unavoidable, to minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent; c. to avoid creating a nuisance; d. To avoid encroachment onto public trust lands; and e. to assure stability and structural integrity without reliance on shoreline protection devices except as provided in CR-I-38, CR-I-39, and CR-I-40.” And related General Plan policy SA-I-28 states, “Vulnerability Identification and Mapping. The City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones shall be mapped based on the best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. Mapping shall be updated as necessary to guide implementation of the LCP’s Coastal Resilience policies.

8.e
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 38 of 39 ends

Notwithstanding the Coastal Vulnerability Zone Maps, site-specific hazard mapping and assessment may be required as part of the individual development review process for properties within the City’s Coastal Vulnerability zones.

As noted in Item B.3. above, portions of the project site appear to be within the LCP mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zone. Site-specific mapping and assessment will be required as the City continues to process this application. In addition, various environmentalstudies will be required.

As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets the requirements of these policies, the project is potentially inconsistent with these policies.

95. CR-I-19 states, “Development proposed in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall include coastal engineering, geomorphology and other relevant technical reports unless on-site hazards already identified in a recent Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map or assessment approved within the last five years are adequate for evaluating and ensuring compliance with the LCP, including through use of permit conditions to address any uncertainty. Reports shall • be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or other suitably qualified professional; • use the best available science;
• consider the impacts from the intermediate-high projection (CalNRA & OPC 2024; or similar precautionary projections as reflected in future updated statewide guidance) of sea-level rise for the anticipated life of the proposed development;
• demonstrate that the development will avoid (or if unavoidable, minimize) impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection devices, except that development behind Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas may consider CR-I-38, CR-I-39, and CR-I41; • for blufftop and/or shoreline development, be set back a sufficient distance from the blufftop edge or highest predicted water line, accounting for wave runup, highest astronomical tide, storm surge, and other relevant factors(not less than 25 feet, or as determined by site-specific conditions) to avoid coastal hazard risks to the maximum degree possible while ensuring stability and structural integrity in light of potential erosion and other coastal hazards, where such minimum required setback shall be the distance necessary for all structural development (including any decks, fences, patios, arbors, and other ancillary development, and generally not including native landscaping, minor grading for landscaping/restoration purposes, and other similar non-structural development) to stay inland of a line that identifies the future predicted location of the blufftop edge or highest predicted water line, accounting for wave runup, highest astronomical tide, storm surge, and other relevant factors, accounting for expected erosion and a bluff stability factor of safety of at least 1.5 for static conditions and at least 1.1 for seismic conditions (where K=0.15) or sea level rise and other climate change impacts as applicable; and

8.e
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 39 of 40 ends

• evaluate the foreseeable effectsthat the development will have on coastal resources over time and mitigate the impacts where they are unavoidable.

Reports may be waived for temporary events, temporary development structures or other minor, short-term development where it is clear there will be no significant hazard risks over the project’s life.

The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does not confirm if there are any known nearby sources of soil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. From the application materialssubmitted, technical reports include a 2017 FEMA Flood Insurance map, and the 1996 Reclamation Plan. None of these technical reports included an assessment approved within the last five years as required by this policy, nor do they contain the necessary information to adequately analyze any impacts of sea level rise, various coastal hazards, or coastal resources as specified by this policy. Various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze these impacts. As there is not enough information at this time to determine if the project meets this policy regarding coastal development, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-70, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-70.

96. CR-I-20 states, “Siting and Design. Development in Coastal Vulnerability Zones shall be sited, designed, and setback from the blufftop and/or shoreline to be safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, flooding and other coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the development or in accordance with CR-I-19, without shoreline protection, considering projected sea level rise and other climate change effects to be determined from best available science and current guidance at the time of approval of the proposed development, as demonstrated by site-specific analyses and/or technical reports. Coastal Development Permit approvals shall prohibit shoreline protection structures for the authorized development, require the property owner to record an acknowledgement that the development does not qualify as an existing structure entitled to construction of a shoreline protection structure under Coastal Act Section 30235, and any other laws, that waive any rights to such protection structures that might exist, and that, where necessary, requires a removal and restoration plan, including bonding for large projects, to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure. However, behind Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas development may consider CR-I-38, CR-I-39, and CR-I-40.” As noted in Item B.3. above, portions of the project site appear to be within the LCP mapped Coastal Vulnerability Zone. Site-specific mapping and assessment will be required as the City continues to process this application. In addition, various other environmental studies, will be required as the City continues to process this application. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding siting and design, the project is potentially inconsistent with

8.e
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 40 of 41 ends

this policy. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-71, and thus is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-71.

97. CR-I-27 states, “Habitat Sea Level Rise Migration Buffers. A sea level rise buffer area shall be added to required habitat buffers if necessary to allow for the migration of wetlands and other coastal habitats caused by sea level rise over the anticipated life of the development. Habitats include all wetlands, riparian, intertidal/shoreline and terrestrial environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) as defined by the Coastal Act. The sea level rise projection considered shall be determined based on the type of development and current State guidance. Except for temporary uses, as described below, uses and development within sea level rise buffer areas shall be limited to minor passive recreational uses, with fencing, de-siltation or erosion control facilities, or other improvements deemed necessary to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper (upland) half of the buffer area. Water quality features such as drainage swales required to support development shall not be constructed in wetland buffers. Temporary uses may also be placed in the sea level rise buffer area untilsuch time assea level rise causesthe wetlands or other coastal habitat to migrate to within 100 feet of the temporary uses, at which time, they shall be removed. All habitat and buffers identified shall be permanently conserved or protected through a deed restriction, open space easement, or other suitable device.” The application materials do not address how the project may (or may not) be affected by sea level rise, and do not address any mapped ESHAs on site. From the materials submitted, 100-year floodplain and a creek setbacks from top of bank are not included. Various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze these potential impacts. As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy, the project is potentially inconsistent. This policy is also found in General Plan policy SA-I-78, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-78.

98. CR-I-28 (and General Plan policy SA-I-79) states, “Stormwater and Dry Weather Flows.

Development shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non-erosive manner to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff and erosion. Runoff shall be directed inland to the storm drain system or to an existing outfall, when feasible. If no storm drain system or existing outfall is present, blufftop runoff shall not be channelized or directed over bluffs and/or to the beach or the ocean.” The Geotechnical Report does not include a plan to describe infiltration testing and detention basin locations after grading is completed, and does not confirm if there are any known nearby sources of soil contamination that would prohibit the use of infiltration on site. Various additional studies will be required as the City continues to process this application to analyze stormwater and hazards. As there is not enough information to determine if the project provides adequate drainage and erosion control facilitiesthe project is potentially inconsistent with this policy. This policy is also found in General

8.e
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 41 of 42 ends

Plan policy SA-I-79, and thus the project is also potentially inconsistent with General Plan policy SA-I-79.

99. CR-I-39 states, “Development directly inland of public infrastructure in Special Shoreline Resilience Areas. Notwithstanding Policy CR-I-2, development located directly inland of the public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas mapped in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 may rely on a shoreline protection structure in that area that is existing at the time of the permit application to help demonstrate that its setbacks meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-20. In addition to meeting the requirements of Policy CR-I-21, such developmentshall be conditioned to require the applicant to acknowledge that the development’s long-term safety may be based in part on shoreline protection structures located seaward of the development, which may or may not be effective, and/or be maintained, and/or be present in the future.” The proposed development site is situated inland from the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area Rockaway subarea per Figure 6-1 “Coastal Resilience Subarea” of the LCP, but no information in the project submittal acknowledges this, nor provides any details on a proposed shoreline resilience plan (or not). Various studies and analyses will be required as the City continues to process this application and will provide further clarity on consistency with this policy. However, as there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding specialshoreline resilience areas, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

C. Project Inconsistency with Pacifica 2040 General Plan The project is inconsistent with the following 2040 General Plan policies as set forth below. 2 1. Figure 4-3 Land Use Diagram designates the project site as Conservation and Visitor Serving Commercial, which does not allow residential uses as a permitted use. Your project is inconsistent as you have proposed only residential uses at an approximate density of 16.25 units per gross acre, which is not consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Designations.

2. ES-I-5 requires visitor-oriented uses on the projectsite and states, “Enhanced Visitor Node. Create a highly distinct visitor-oriented commercial and hospitality node at Rockaway Beach and on developable portions of the Rockaway Quarry site. A key component of this strategy would be to pursue a boutique or high end/resort-oriented hotel and supporting tourist-oriented shopping and dining opportunities.” The project proposes only residential uses and does not include a hotel, nor any shopping or dining opportunities, and is thus inconsistent with this policy.

3. ES-I-7 states, “Mixed Land Uses. Promote development of a broader mix of revenue-generating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits.” The project proposes only 2 In addition, the project is also inconsistent with those 2040 General Plan policies that are identical to LCLUP policies, which are discussed above in Section B, Project Inconsistency with the LCLUP.

8.e
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 42 of 43 ends

residential uses and does not include a hotel, nor any shopping or dining opportunities, and thus is inconsistent with this policy.

Further, a forthcoming review is anticipated as it pertains to the City’s Design Guidelines.

Therefore, the project may be found inconsistent with this General Plan policy. In addition,

8.e
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 43 of 44 ends

various environmental studies will be required as the City continues to process this application and additional inconsistencies may be noted.

8.e
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 44 of 45 ends

8.e
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 45 of 46 ends

21. CO-I-53 states “Transportation Control Measures. Ensure compliance with the most current Bay Area Clean Air Plan by implementing the Plan’s recommended Transportation Control Measures.

8.e
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 46 of 47 ends

8.e
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 47 of 48 ends

project meets this policy regarding cleanup of contamination, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

As there is not enough information to determine if the project meets this policy regarding emergency access on new roadways, the project is potentially inconsistent with this policy.

Additionally, various studies, including a noise study, will be required as the City continues to

8.e
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 48 of 49 ends

The C-3 district does not permit residential uses either as a permitted use or a conditional use. (PMC § 9-

4.1201.) PMC § 9-4.1201(b)(8) expressly providesthat no residential uses are authorized in the C-3 district.

8.e
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 2025-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 49 of 50 ends

specific development standards of Article 43 will be provided in the City's June 6, 2026 final inconsistency letter.

Next Steps
We will be completing our inconsistency review and will provide you with a final letter by June 6, 2026.

Lastly, as the City continues processing of your application, it may identify additional information that is necessary to clarify, amplify, correct, or supplement your application.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at [email protected].

8.e
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency File No. 202
5-036
Coastal Crest Residences
April 28, 2026

Page 50 of 50 ends

Sincerely,
Samantha Updegrave
Community Development Director
City of Pacifica
Attachments:

1. California Coastal Commission, comments, email dated February 18, 2026

8.e
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

8.e
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 2 coastal program consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).

8.e
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 3 6. Site Requirements
We have previously provided many comments related to various proposed projects at this former quarry site, including related to reclamation. To help consolidate our comments for the City and the applicant, please see the below list of primary outstanding questions and comments (and please also refer to previous correspondence dated November 22, 2016, October 12, 2020, April 4, 2022, October 11, 2024, and October 20, 2025, included herein by reference). Please note that these questions and comments are not exhaustive, and we may have different and/or additional comments as the application and development review process unfolds. For now, however, please consider the following:

8.e
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 4 Wetland Delineation
A major concern is that the reclamation plan proposes wetland restoration on the eastern portion of the site when the impacted wetlands are located on the western portion, referred to as the “Quarry Parcel”. As the proposed mitigation wetlands would relocate the resource to a more inland site, they may not fulfill the same ecological role as the current wetlands since they are dispersed throughout the Quarry Parcel and provide habitat value to the site. Typically, on-site, in-kind restoration is the preferred requirement to assure adequate mitigation, and the proposed location of the restoration efforts would likely be considered off-site as currently proposed. If offsite restoration is the chosen approach, it is critical the applicant provides a strong ecological rationale to support the decision to relocate the wetlands. Further, we recommend incorporating a more detailed and thorough analysis of how the proposed project and each of the proposed project alternatives would impact the wetlands and other biological resources on site and how each would mitigate for such impacts.

8.e
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 5 sources that will ensure the genetic integrity of local populations, including through certified local harvest within coastal San Mateo County; and (7) how the project will create a self-sustaining native vegetation community, including consideration for the impacts of any maintenance and vegetation management actions including, but not limited to, weeding, mowing, the application of herbicides, or irrigation inputs.

8.e
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 6 Coastal View Corridor Impacts
The LUP includes policies specific to impacts on Coastal View Corridors, including LUP Policies ER-G-15 and ER-G-16, and identifies the quarry as an area with view corridors from the west, south, and north. Accordingly, please require the following information:
(1) an outline of how the proposed development is compliant with these policies and how it will not impact coastal view corridors, including in terms of proposed building heights; (2) and analysis of visual impacts that might occur during the various phases of the project including construction, early revegetation, and established revegetation; and (3) visual simulations from all major view corridors identified in the LUP.

8.e
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Proposed Development at the Former Pacifica Quarry Site 7 wetland/ESHA protection and buffers, coastal hazards, tribal/cultural resources, and coastal view corridors.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me via email at [email protected].

8.e
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency

8.f
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency 425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
BUCHALTER 110833491v3
110833491v3

415.227.3508 Direct
[email protected] June 15, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Chair Hauser and Members of the City of
Pacifica Planning Commission
1800 Francisco Blvd.

Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: File No. 2025-036 – Appeal of Determination of Inconsistencies Under Housing Accountability Act and Next Steps for Coastal Development Permit (CDP-477-25, Specific Plan (SP-192-25), Tree Permit (TP-14-25), and Sign Permit (S-138-25) for Development of 1,225 rental dwelling units in 20 apartment buildings and 26 townhomes (17 apartment buildings on the East Parcel (APN 018- 150-150), and 3 apartment buildings and the townhome units on the West Parcel (018-150-110, 018-150- 120)), and 1,259 parking spaces on approximately

86.39 acre Vacant Parcels (APN 018-150-110, -120, -150) known as Coastal Crest Residences
Dear Chair Hauser and Members of the Planning Commission:

Buchalter, LLP (“Buchalter”) represents Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC (“Preserve”) as land use counsel with respect to its plans to develop a 100% affordable 1,225 unit multi-family mixed-income residential development project (“Project”) on the 86.39-acre site of the former Rockaway Quarry located on Cabrillo Highway (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150) (the “Property”) in the City of Pacifica (“City” or “Pacifica”) pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Senate Bill (SB) 330, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended (Government Code §§ 65589.5, 65905.5, 65941.1, and 66300 et seq.) (“SB 330”). The Project also includes the reclamation of the Rockaway Quarry pursuant to the approved 1996 Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan. The Project requires two coastal development permits (“CDP”) to implement the approved 1996 Reclamation Plan and the residential project subject to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA. Preserve submitted a formal development project application for the development permit approvals necessary to develop and implement the Project (“Formal Development Project”).

8.f
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.

City of Pacifica Planning Commission
June 15, 2026

Page 2 ends

BUCHALTER 110833491v33
Coastal Crest Project Background
In 1996, the Pacifica City Council approved the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan (“1996 Reclamation Plan”) to reclaim the decommissioned quarry on the Property. For 30 years, Preserve or its predecessors attempted to process a revised reclamation plan for the Rockaway Quarry either with residential development project applications, or without. After a failed initiative effort to obtain residential project approval with a revised reclamation plan in 2016, the Preserve pivoted and proceeded only with a revised reclamation project in 2022. However, the City Council rejected that proposal at the end of 2024, in part, because the Council indicated that reclamation should only proceed in conjunction with a development proposal. Preserve appealed the City Council’s denial of the revised reclamation plan to the State Division of Mines and Geology (“SDMG”). In early 2025, the SDMG rejected the appeal and directed Preserve to proceed with reclamation pursuant to the approved and vested 1996 Reclamation Plan.

At SMGB’s direction, Preserve decided to proceed with reclamation under the 1996 Reclamation Plan in the spring of 2025. This time, given the City Council’s prior deliberations about the future of the Property, Preserve coupled its application for a CDP for reclamation under the 1996 Reclamation Plan (the last remaining discretionary action) with a redevelopment development project. On April 8, 2025, Preserve submitted its Preliminary Application under SB 330 and the HAA. When Preserve submitted its Preliminary Application, the Coastal Commission had not approved and certified the City’s 2025 LCLUP and the State Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”) had not yet certified the City’s Housing Element. The Planning Department deemed the Project’s Preliminary Application complete on May 7, 2025 pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1.1 As the Office of Attorney General
noted in its June 5, 2025 Legal Alert, “Consistent interpretation of the Builder’s Remedy in Cal.

Housing Defense Fund, et al. v. City of La Cañada Flintridge (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Mar. 4, 2024, No. 23STCP02614) and Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v. City of Goleta, et al. (Super.

Ct. S.B. County, Feb. 26, 2025, No. 24CV000548)” (“OAG Legal Alert”), “The Builder’s Remedy only applies when a local government either (1) fails to timely adopt a substantially compliant housing element, or (2) falls out of substantial compliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5)-(6).) A Builder’s Remedy application is one submitted during the time frame when a local government’s housing element is not in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. (Ibid.)” That was the case when the City deemed Preserve’s Preliminary Application complete.

The Community Development Department confirmed that the Project qualified for and would

1 We believe that the preliminary application is complete on submittal as long as all the statutory information is in place and that these factual assertions do not constitute any concession that the City has a statutory right to deem a preliminary application incomplete.

8.f
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.

City of Pacifica Planning Commission
June 15, 2026

Page 3 ends

BUCHALTER 110833491v33
proceed as a Builder’s Remedy Project. The Builder’s Remedy arises under section 65589.5 subdivision (d) of the HAA. That subsection of the HAA mandates approval of affordable housing projects, even where a project is inconsistent with local zoning and general plan standards, if a local government failed to timely adopt a housing element in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. For that reason, Builder’s Remedy projects are legally distinct from the usual category of residential development projects that proceed under section 65589.5 subdivision (j), and which must be consistent with the local government’s general plan and zoning. Following three submittals of its Formal Development Project Application, the City deemed the third submittal of the Formal Development Project Application complete on April 7, 2026.2
In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (j)(2)(A), the Community Development Department issued the City’s Initial Inconsistencies Letter (as defined in the June 5, 2026 Letter) to Preserve on April 28, 2026. On June 6, 2026, Preserve received the Final Inconsistency Letter from Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director (dated June 5, 2026) advising Preserve that the City has completed its final inconsistency review and issued its determinations regarding applicable project requirements, and identifying project inconsistencies pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (j)(2)(A) (“Final Inconsistency Letter”).3 The Final Inconsistency Letter supplements and incorporates by reference and reaffirms the City’s Initial Inconsistencies Letter.

Because they apply only to non-Builder’s Remedy projects arising under subdivision (j), inconsistency determinations, like the Final Inconsistencies Letter itself, constitute a determination that the City will not process the Project as a Builder’s Remedy project, as Builder’s Remedy projects are entitled to proceed even if inconsistent with a city general plan and zoning. The Final Inconsistency Letter constitutes a final administrative decision that the Project is subject to the following two determinations that conflict with the HAA and prevent Preserve from proceeding with the Project:
(1) Decision Regarding Voter Initiative. The Initial Inconsistencies Letter as incorporated by reference into the Final Inconsistency Letter states that Ordinance No. 391-C.S., adopted by the voters in 1983, requires a vote of the people to develop housing on the Project site (“Voter Initiative”). The City has determined that development of housing on the Project will be subject to the Voter Initiative in violation of the HAA and SB 330.

2 Preserve’s March 25, 2026 third Formal Development Project Application Submittal and the City’s June 5, 2026 Final Inconsistency Letter (received on June 6, 2026) state the Project formal application history which is herein incorporated by reference.
3 We refer to the Final Inconsistency Letter by the date that it was received by Preserve which is June 6, 2026.

8.f
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.

City of Pacifica Planning Commission
June 15, 2026

Page 4 ends

BUCHALTER 110833491v33
(2) Decision Regarding Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project is subject to the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”), not the 1980 LCLUP which was in effect when the City deemed the Preliminary Application complete on May 7, 2025.

On behalf of Preserve, we hereby appeal the Final Inconsistency Letter determinations under Section 9-4.3804 of the Pacifica Municipal Code regarding the Community Development Director’s decision that: (1) the Project is subject to Ordinance No. 391-C.S. and requires a voter initiative to develop housing on the Property, and (2) the Formal Development Project Application is subject to the City’s 2025 LCLUP (the “Appeal”). We appeal the Community Development Director’s determination that a Voter Initiative is required to develop housing on the Property because the City’s determination conflicts with the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, and local Ordinance No. 391-C.S. is preempted by SB 330, and conflicts with State Planning and Zoning Laws, and applicable case law holding that housing projects are not subject to initiative and referenda. We appeal the City’s determination that the Project is subject to the 2025 LCLUP and not the 1980 LCLUP, because the City deemed the Preliminary Application complete prior to the certification of the 2025 LCLUP.

We understand that the Community Development Department has indicated that the other inconsistency determinations in its Final Inconsistency Letter are not final decisions and are not subject to administrative appeal process under Section 9-4.3804 at this time. While we do not appeal the other non-appealable inconsistency items that do not constitute a final determination as noted in the City’s Final Inconsistency Letter, in the event that a non-appealable inconsistency item identified in the Final Inconsistency Letter is related to or depends upon this Appeal, we reserve the right to amend the Formal Development Project Application at a later date to reflect the Planning Commission’s determination concerning our Appeal. Our submittals in response to the June 6 Final Inconsistency Letter do not constitute an admission that the Community Development Department’s request was lawful under either the HAA or the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920, et seq.) (“PSA”), as amended by SB330.

We acknowledge the Community Development Director’s confirmation that the City will continue concurrently processing the Project’s Formal Development Project Application, and initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) during our Appeal. Regardless of the timing of the Commission’s action on the Appeal, for the avoidance of doubt, we request that the Community Development Department not stay the effectiveness of the Formal Development Project Application while the Commission reviews the Appeal and continue the processing of the Formal Development Project Application.

Preserve Appeals the City’s Determination that the Project is Subject to Ordinance No. 391-C.S.

8.f
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.

City of Pacifica Planning Commission
June 15, 2026

Page 5 ends

BUCHALTER 110833491v33
Preserve appeals the City’s determination that residential development on the Property will be subject to a voter initiative requirement under Ordinance No. 391-C.S. As a threshold matter, it is simply a category mistake, and a direct violation of the Permit Streamlining Act, for a city to subject an adjudicative permit application to an initiative as there is no application for a rezoning. The Permit Streamlining Act does not apply to applications or requests for a legislative approval such as a rezoning. See Land Waste Mgmt. v. Contra Costa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 950, 956.

As the appeals court held in the 1984 decision in Yost v. Thomas (36 Cal. 3d 561), use permits and variances are not subject to the power of initiative and referendum. Only legislative actions such as general plan amendments and rezoning are subject to initiative, development permits are not (see e.g., Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 700.)
The HAA prohibits local governments from requiring the applicant to proceed with a rezoning or general plan amendment. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(6)(D).) Such a position goes to the heart of the statutory right that arises from the Builder’s Remedy. Any action to repudiate such a right must comply with Government Code section 65589.5, subd. (d)(1), which requires a finding of a specific, adverse impact to the public health and safety, supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(1).) A “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Ibid.) Notably, inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation “shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” (Id., § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).) The Legislature’s requirement to adopt “written findings” supported by a “preponderance of the evidence in the record” anticipates the processing of any Builders Remedy application to a point of being reviewed -- and subject to adopted findings -- by the appropriate decision- maker, in this case, the Planning Commission and/or the City Council, not by staff at the planning department counter.

With the enactment of the Housing Crisis Act in 2019, California courts have held that housing projects are not subject to initiative and referenda as state law preempts local ordinances where the power of initiative or referenda violates the HAA. The court held in Building Industry Association v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 749, 762-763, 767-771 that a local initiative was preempted by State Planning and Zoning Law. Similarly, in the unpublished decision of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, in Oak Hill Park Company v. the City of Antioch, Case No. CV MSN 21-0048, the court invalidated an initiative restricting residential

8.f
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.

City of Pacifica Planning Commission
June 15, 2026

Page 6 ends

BUCHALTER 110833491v33
development as in conflict with SB 330 even though the requirement to place the initiative on the ballot was in effect prior to the enactment of SB 330.

To require that the Project adjudicatory actions be subject to a vote is a backdoor approach to requiring rezoning by initiative when rezoning is otherwise prohibited under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA. Thus, we appeal the City’s determination that the Project is subject to the Voter Initiative as in violation of the State Constitution and the HAA.

Residential development is allowed under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA and under State law would not be subject to the power of initiative under Ordinance No. 391-3.804.

Preserve Appeals the City’s Determination that the Project is Subject to the 2025 LCLUP.

As the Legislature and the Coastal Commission have repeatedly confirmed, the Coastal Act and state housing laws must be harmonized to give effect to both. As for the HAA, it makes clear that “[it] is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(L) emphasis added.) Because the Project designates at least two-thirds of the square footage for residential use, the Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5. subd. (h)(2).) Moreover, because the Project dedicates at least 20% of its units to low-income households (100% to be precise), the Project also meets the definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” under the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3).) Pursuant to the HAA, submittal of a preliminary application establishes “vesting rights,” such that the Project may only be subjected to the “ordinances, policies and standards” in effect at the time the Preliminary Application was submitted. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (o).) When Preserve submitted its Preliminary Application for the Project which was deemed submitted and accepted on May 7, 2025, the City had not adopted a housing element that was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) as substantially compliant with the State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65580, et seq.). Preserve submitted its Preliminary Application pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA.

As you know, the Builder’s Remedy provisions prevent the City from denying affordable housing projects even if the project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation when a jurisdiction is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law and no other specifically enumerated finding to support a disapproval can be made. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d).)
Importantly, when Preserve’s Preliminary Application was deemed accepted on May 7, 2025, the City Council still had not adopted its 2025 LCLUP. The City Council and Coastal Commission did not adopt the Local Coastal Plan Update until May 8, 2025, a day after the City

8.f
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.

City of Pacifica Planning Commission
June 15, 2026

Page 7 ends

BUCHALTER 110833491v33
deemed Preserve’s Builder’s Remedy Project Preliminary Application accepted and vested within the meaning of the HAA Builder’s Remedy provisions. Preserve submitted a written statement as part of its Project Second Formal Application that the Builder’s Remedy Project is consistent with the Section 3 policies of the Local Coastal Plan as the City’s November 5th Letter required. Preserve based its determination of consistency with the LCP and policies in effect when the 1996 Reclamation Plan was approved and in effect before the City and Coastal Commission approved the LCLUP because those were the policies in effect under SB 330 as to the Builder’s Remedy Project application.

Of course, the Project will also be subject to the Coastal Act, to the extent required by law. That is why Preserve applied for two CDPs for its Project- one for the housing development on the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA and one for the 1996 Reclamation Plan.

However, the determination of consistency with the City’s policies for the Project must be made under the LCP in effect when the City deemed the Builder’s Remedy Project Preliminary Application complete because that plan (just like the General Plan and zoning) were vested for purposes of the processing of the Builder’s Remedy Project application. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (o)(1); § 65941.1, subd. (d).)
For the reasons set forth above, we file this Appeal, with reservation of our right to amend and/or supplement this Appeal as necessary and a plenary reservation of all our rights under the state housing laws and the laws of the Constitution of the United States. We appreciate the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Appeal and look forward to the Community Development Department’s processing of the Coastal Crest Formal Development Project Application.

Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Samantha Updegrave
Paul Heule
Matt Larson
Michael Shonafelt

8.f
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY PRESERVE @ PACIFICA AND UPHOLDING THE FINAL

INCONSISTENCY LETTER DETERMINATIONS BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT THE COASTAL CREST PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO (1) ORDINANCE 391-

CS (THE CITY'S VOTER-ADOPTED INITIATIVE REQUIRING A VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE TO DEVELOP HOUSING ON THE PROJECT SITE), AND (2) THE 2025

LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
(FILE NO. 2025-036; APPLICATION FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP-477- 25), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PSD-876-25), DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DP-92-25), SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-192-25), TREE PERMIT (TP-14-25), AND SIGN PERMIT (S-138-25) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 1,225 RENTAL DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 86.39- ACRE VACANT PARCELS (APNs 018-150-110, -120, -150) KNOWN AS COASTAL CREST RESIDENCES.)
____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC ("Appellant"), represented by Buchalter LLP, has submitted applications for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP-477-25), Site Development Permit (PSD-876-25), Development Plan (DP-92-25), Specific Plan (SP-192-25), Tree Permit (TP-14-25), and Sign Permit (S-138-25) for the development of 1,225 rental dwelling units in 20 apartment buildings and 26 townhomes on approximately 86.39 acres comprising three vacant parcels (APNs 018-150-110, -120, and -150), known as Coastal Crest Residences, Pacifica Planning File Number 2025-036 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, a preliminary application for the Project pursuant to Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) was submitted on May 7, 2025, and deemed to meet the statutory requirements; and WHEREAS, the City received the first formal application submittal for the Project on October 6, 2025, and issued a Determination of Incompleteness on November 5, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City received the second formal application submittal for the Project on February 2, 2026, and issued a Determination of Incompleteness on February 27, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City received the third formal application submittal for the Project on March 25, 2026, and issued a Notice of Complete Application on April 7, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City’s Notice of Complete Application initiated its Consistency review of the project application pursuant to California Government Code 65589.5; and WHEREAS, the City was required to complete its inconsistency analysis within 60-days of the date that the project application was deemed complete, pursuant to California Government Code 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(ii);
WHEREAS, as the Project application was deemed complete on April 7, 2026, the City was required to complete its inconsistency analysis within 60-days of this date, which is June 6, 2026;

8.g
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: ATT H - PC Resolution 2026-007_2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Coastal 2 WHEREAS, the City issued an Initial Determination of Inconsistency Letter on April 28, 2026, and a Final Determination of Inconsistency Letter on June 5, 2026, both within the required 60 day time-frame (collectively the “Inconsistency Letter”); and WHEREAS, the Inconsistency Letter, identified inconsistencies between the Project and applicable City plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, and other similar provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Inconsistency Letter determined that the Project is subject to both Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (the City's voter-adopted initiative requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the project site) and the City's 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan ("2025 LCLUP"), adopted on May 8, 2025, and expressly identified these decisions as appealable decisions pursuant to Section 9-4.3804 of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, in its letter to the City dated February 18, 2026, confirmed that the Project must comply with the policies of the City's certified 2025 LCLUP; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2026, Buchalter LLP, on behalf of Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC, timely filed a written appeal of the determinations that Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (the City's voteradopted initiative requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the project site) and the City's 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan ("2025 LCLUP") (the "Appeal"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented relating to the Appeal, including the Inconsistency Letter, the Appeal letter and attachments, the California Coastal Commission correspondence, and the Staff Report, 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 as follows:

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

2. Incorporation of Record. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, oral and written comments and testimony, and other related materials presented at or before the August 3, 2026, public hearing.

3. CEQA Review. The Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica finds that its action on this appeal is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The determination on an appeal of an inconsistency determination is an administrative action and does not constitute approval of a "project" as defined under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21065).

4. Findings on Appeal. The Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings regarding the Appeal:
a. With respect to Appeal No. 1 - Determination Regarding Voter Initiative, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

8.g
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: ATT H - PC Resolution 2026-007_2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Coastal 3 i. Appeal Argument #1-A: The City’s actions are in violation of the Permit Streamlining Act as only legislative actions are subject to the power of initiative and referendum and the current application does not include legislative actions.

Finding: The City has not violated the Permit Streamlining Act and has timely and appropriately processed the application. The City has met all requirements set forth in Government Code section 65920 et seq. for each of the three project application submittals and ultimately deemed the application complete on April 7, 2026. Moreover, the completeness review is not at issue here. The issues in this appeal are the inconsistency determinations. In addition, the City is not submitting the project's permit applications to a new initiative or referendum. The Voter Initiative was itself a prior legislative act which imposed a voter approval requirement for any future residential development of the property. This voter requirement was adopted decades before the application at issue, and does not constitute a referendum on the project's adjudicative approvals.
ii. Appeal Argument #1-B: The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA) prohibits the City from requiring a general plan amendment or rezoning, and notes that applications can only be denied with specific findings.

Finding: The City is not requiring the Appellant to pursue a rezoning or general plan amendment. The City deemed the application complete for processing without a general plan amendment or rezoning application.

More importantly, the HAA does not prohibit the applicability of voter approved initiatives, which have been upheld by the courts. Neither the HAA, nor its Builder’s Remedy provision, contain language indicating that the Legislature intended to weaken the electorate’s initiative power. Thus, the Voter Initiative requirement that voter approval is required prior to any residential development, remains in effect. In addition, any reference to the findings required for denial of a project in the HAA is premature and irrelevant as no denial has been recommended or determined. iii. Appeal Argument #1-C: Housing projects are not subject to initiative as state law preempts local ordinances where the power of initiative violates the HAA.

Finding: There is nothing in the HAA that limits the applicability of lawfully adopted voter initiatives to housing projects. Neither the HAA, nor its Builder’s Remedy provision, contain express language indicating that the Legislature intended to weaken the electorate’s initiative power. Thus, the Voter Initiative remains in effect.
iv. Appeal Argument #1-D: Having the Project be subject to a vote is a “backdoor” to requiring rezoning by initiative when rezoning is otherwise prohibited under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA.

Finding: This argument reiterates Appellant’s Appeal Argument #1-B. As set forth in the Finding for Appeal Argument #1-B, the City is not in violation of the HAA by determining that the Voter Initiative applies to the

8.g
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: ATT H - PC Resolution 2026-007_2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Coastal 4 project. The City is not requiring a rezoning application to process this application. The City is merely setting forth its position that the voter approval requirement lawfully applies to the project and that the HAA does not abrogate the will of the electorate.
b. With respect to Appeal No. 2 - Determination Regarding 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), the Planning Commission finds as follows:
i. Appeal Argument #2-A: The Appellant’s preliminary application vested the project with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on May 7, 2025, the date the preliminary application was deemed submitted.

Moreover, because the 2025 LCLUP was not certified by the California Coastal Commission until May 8, 2025, one day later, project consistency must be measured against the coastal land use plan and policies in effect before the 2025 LCLUP update was adopted.

Finding: The HAA does not include the Coastal Act among the list of regulations vested by a preliminary application. Further, both the HAA and the Housing Crisis Act explicitly state that nothing in those provisions supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The Coastal Commission further confirmed that the updated 2025 LCLUP applies to this project regardless of the date of the preliminary SB 330 submittal as set forth in its letter to the City dated February 18, 2026,
ii. Appeal Argument #2-B: The HAA provides that the statute must be interpreted to afford the "fullest possible weight" to housing (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L)), and that the Coastal Act and state housing laws must be harmonized.

Finding: The Legislature has already harmonized the statutes by including express savings clauses in the HAA preserving the Coastal Act in full. Further, harmonizing the statutes means applying the vesting protections of the preliminary application to the City's general plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, and subdivision standards and criteria, while applying the Coastal Act, and the certified LCLUP that implements it. The provisions, however, must be those in effect at the time of coastal development review, namely the 2025 LCLUP. Applying the 2025 LCLUP does not limit the applicability of State housing laws, and ensures compliance with the Coastal Act.

5. Denial of Appeal. The Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal and uphold the Community Development Director’s determinations that the Project is subject to: (1) Ordinance 391, and (2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan, based on the record of the Appeal and the findings set forth above. * * * * *

8.g
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: ATT H - PC Resolution 2026-007_2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Coastal 5 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 3rd day of August 2026.

AYES, Commissioners: Berman, Redfield, Davis, Sanchez, Fisher

NOES, Commissioners:

ABSENT, Commissioners: Hauser, Ferguson
ABSTAIN, Commissioners:
______________________________
Lauren Berman
Planning Commission Vice Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Samantha Updegrave Michelle Marchetta Kenyon
Community Development Director City Attorney

8.g
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: ATT H - PC Resolution 2026-007_2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Coastal

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: August 3, 2026 FILE NO. 2025-036
SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of the Final Inconsistency Letter determinations by the Community Development Director that the Coastal Crest project is subject to (1) Ordinance 391-CS (the City's voter-adopted initiative requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the project site), and (2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The Coastal Crest project is an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP-477-25), Site Development Permit (PSD-876-25), Development Plan (DP-92-25), Specific Plan (SP-192-25), Tree Permit (TP-14-25), and Sign Permit (S-138-25) for development of 1,225 rental dwelling units in 20 apartment buildings and 26 townhomes on an approximately 86.39-acre site comprised of three undeveloped parcels (APNs 018-150- 110, 018-150-120, 018-150-150) known as Coastal Crest Residences (File No. 2025- 036).

This appeal is based solely on the two inconsistency determinations noted above. The hearing is not on a review of the project application itself or its specific characteristics.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Community Development Director’s determinations that the project is subject to (1) Ordinance 391-CS, and (2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan, as set forth in the Final Inconsistency Letter dated June 5, 2026.

STAFF CONTACT:

Samantha Updegrave
Community Development Director
[email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed residential housing project includes development of 1,225 below market rate (BMR) units and reclamation of the former quarry site pursuant to the approved 1996 Reclamation Plan.

As set forth above, this hearing is not on the project itself, but rather on the legal determinations that the project is subject to (1) Ordinance 391-CS (the City's voteradopted initiative requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the project site), and (2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

8.h
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Application History
The project site (commonly referred to as the “Rockaway Quarry”) was originally a limestone quarry for which operations ceased in 1987. In accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), the City approved a reclamation plan for the project site in 1996. Since 1996, several proposals for alternative reclamation plans have been proposed, none of which were approved by the City. Most recently, the property owner proposed a revised Quarry Reclamation Plan, dated October 2023, and a subsequent Reduced Fill Alternative, dated August 2024. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for that proposed project scope, but was never certified. The application for the revised Quarry Reclamation Plan was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council, and the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission ’s denial. The applicant appealed the City Council’s decision to the State Mining and Geology Board, who rejected the appeal.

On April 8, 2025, the property owner filed a preliminary application for the residential project that is the subject of these appealed inconsistency determinations. The property owner also invoked the “Builder’s Remedy,” which provides that if a city does not have a certified Housing Element, it cannot deny an affordable housing project on the basis of inconsistency with the City’s general plan and zoning except in limited circumstances.

This effectively allows certain housing projects to move forward even if not compliant with the City’s general plan and zoning designations. Table 1 and Table 2 below provides a specific timeline of the current application history.

Application files that can be viewed online are available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/community-development/planningdivision/quarry-site-sb-330-preliminary-application Table 1: SB 330 Preliminary Application Project Timeline Date Milestone
April 8, 2025 Preliminary SB 330 Application Submitted
May 5, 2025 Preliminary SB 330 Application Deemed Not Submitted May 7, 2025 Revised Preliminary Application deemed submitted under Government Code Section 65941.1 vesting the laws in effect on that date

8.h
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
3 Table 2: Formal Development Application Project Timeline Date Milestone
October 6, 2025 Submission of Formal SB 330 Application (Submittal #1) November 5, 2025 Determination of Incomplete Application (Submittal #1) February 2, 2026 Resubmission of Formal SB 330 Application (Submittal #2) February 27, 2026 Determination of Incomplete Application (Submittal #2) March 5, 2026 Applicant filed an appeal to the City regarding the Second Completeness determination.

March 25, 2026 Resubmission of Formal SB 330 Application (Submittal #3) April 7, 2026 Formal SB 330 Application Deemed Complete; Start of 60-Day Consistency Review of SB 330 Formal Application
April 28, 2026 Initial Inconsistency Determination Letter Issued (Attachment F)
May 12, 2026 Applicant withdrew appeal of the Completeness determination June 5, 2026 Final Determination of Project Inconsistency Letter Issued (Attachment C)
June 15, 2026 Applicant submitted Application to Appeal determinations that the Voter Initiative and 2025 LCLUP apply to project
(Attachment B)
August 3, 2026 Appeal to Planning Commission (Subject of this staff report)

8.h
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
4 Inconsistency Review
After the application was deemed complete on April 7, 2026, the City underwent the legally required consistency review. Under the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A), a city must provide an applicant with written notice identifying any inconsistency between a proposed housing development and "an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision." The City was required to issue this inconsistency notice within 60 days of the date the application was determined to be complete which was June 6, 2026. (Gov. Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(ii).) Failure to issue the required notice within this period, results in the project being deemed consistent with applicable local standards. The City satisfied this obligation through two letters: an Initial Inconsistencies Letter dated April 28, 2026 (Attachment F), and a subsequent Final Inconsistency Letter dated June 5, 2026 (Attachment C). Both letters were issued in advance of the June 6, 2026, statutory deadline.

Initial Inconsistencies Letter (April 28, 2026)
The Initial Inconsistencies Letter provided the applicant with 1) early notice of fundamental project inconsistencies pursuant to the HAA in advance of the 60-day statutory deadline; 2) a description of the City's approach to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 3) an outline of the procedural next steps in the review of the application.

Substantively, the initial letter presented an inconsistency analysis organized by type of land use policy implicated. The letter identified fundamental project inconsistencies with 1) Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (the City's voter-adopted initiative requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the Project site, Attachment D); and 2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). The letter also noted that a final inconsistency review would be forthcoming.

Final Inconsistency Letter (June 05, 2026)
The Final Inconsistency Letter completed the City's inconsistency analysis within the statutory 60-day window and performed a number of functions. First, and most relevant to the proposed appeal, the Final Inconsistency Letter constituted the City's formal decision regarding the project inconsistencies and underlying land use policies applicable to the Project. Specifically, the letter provided the determination that the Project is subject to both Ordinance No. 391-C.S. and the City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan adopted May 8, 2025 (the "2025 LCLUP"). The letter expressly identified this determination as an appealable decision pursuant to Section 9-4.3804 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. It is these determinations that are the subject of the appeal before the Planning Commission.

In addition, the Final Inconsistency Letter supplemented and incorporated by reference the Initial Inconsistencies Letter, reaffirming all items identified therein as though fully set forth in the final letter. Further, it identified additional specific project inconsistencies,

8.h
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
5 beyond those noted in the initial letter. The letter also noted that, notwithstanding the applicant's invocation of the Builder's Remedy, the analysis addressed consistency with all City plans, ordinances, and policies.

The Initial Inconsistencies Letter and the Final Inconsistency Letter are referred to collectively herein as the “Inconsistency Letter.”
APPEAL:

On June 15, 2026, Buchalter LLP, on behalf of the applicant, Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the following two determinations in the Inconsistency Letter pursuant to Section 9-4.3804 of the Pacifica Municipal Code ("Appeal"):
(1) The City’s determination that the Project is subject to Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (the City's voter-adopted initiative requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the Project site) (the “Voter Initiative”); and
(2) The City’s determination that the Project is subject to the 2025 LCLUP rather than the 1980 LCLUP.

The Appeal does not include the remaining inconsistency items in the Inconsistency Letter, which the City has indicated are not final appealable determinations at this time.

The Appeal also requests that the City continue processing the application, including CEQA review, rather than suspending that work while the Appeal is decided. The City is continuing to process the application, including coordination of CEQA review.

The Appeal issues and arguments are summarized with a staff response below. For the complete contents of the appeal, please refer to Attachment B.

Appeal No. 1 - Determination Regarding Voter Initiative As noted above, the City’s Inconsistency Letter determined that Ordinance No. 391-C.S. applies to the proposed project. Ordinance No. 391-C.S. is a voter initiative that requires a vote of the electorate to allow residential development at the project site (“Voter Initiative”). The Voter Initiative was adopted by Pacifica voters in 1983 and designated the quarry site as C-3 Service Commercial. No residential uses are listed as permitted or conditional uses in C-3 Service Commercial (PMC Sec. 9-4.1201). C-3 Service Commercial explicitly provides that no residential uses are authorized (PMC Sec. 9-

4.1201(b)(8)). Of critical importance, the Voter Initiative reserves in the electorate the exclusive power to authorize any residential uses at the site and states as follows:
“The following parcels of land: A.P. #018-150-050 & -070, commonly known as the quarry, are hereby rezoned from A/B-5 and M-1 to C-3 with the provision that no further public vote be required for any future rezonings except that any residential development of the property, including residential development permitted under

8.h
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
6 the C-3 designation, shall require a vote of the people. This rezoning does not remove the HPD overlay.”
The Inconsistency Letter noted that State law does not allow development in contravention of voter initiatives and that courts will preserve the electorate’s initiative power in the absence of clear legislative intent from the Legislature to abrogate it. The Inconsistency Letter further noted that neither the HAA, nor its Builder’s Remedy provision, contain express language indicating that the Legislature intended to weaken the electorate’s initiative power. The letter concluded that the Voter Initiative requirement for a vote of the electorate to develop residential uses on the project site continues to be enforceable, and residential development on the site will require a vote of the people irrespective of the invocation of the Builder’s Remedy.

The Appeal of the City's determination that the project is subject to the Voter Initiative makes a number of unsupported arguments, as set forth below.

Appeal Argument #1-A.

The Appellant contends that the City’s actions are in violation of the Permit Streamlining Act as only legislative actions are subject to the power of initiative and referendum and the current application does not include legislative actions.

Staff Response: It is not clear from Appellant’s argument how the Permit Streamlining Act is related to the initiative power and how that would render the Voter Initiative inapplicable.

Further, the City has not violated the Permit Streamlining Act and has timely and appropriately processed the application. The Permit Streamlining Act generally requires that the City review land use applications to determine whether required application materials are included in a submittal and to respond within 30 days with a list of incomplete items (Government Code section 65920 et seq.). The City has met these requirements for each of the three project application submittals and ultimately deemed the application complete on April 7, 2026, as described in detail in Table 1 above.

Moreover, the completeness review is not at issue here. The issues in this appeal are the inconsistency determinations.

In addition, the Appellant's argument that the City is unlawfully subjecting adjudicative permit approvals to the initiative power mischaracterizes the City's determination. The City is not submitting the project's permit applications to a new initiative or referendum.

The Voter Initiative was itself a prior legislative act which in fact amended the zoning and imposed a voter approval requirement for any future residential development of the property. This voter requirement was adopted decades before this application, and does not constitute a referendum on the project's adjudicative approvals. Rather, the City is merely maintaining, as required under the HAA, that the project is inconsistent with and subject to the Voter Initiative.

8.h
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
7 Appeal Argument #1-B.

The Appellant maintains that the HAA prohibits the City from requiring a general plan amendment or rezoning, and notes that applications can only be denied with specific findings.

Staff Response: The City is not requiring the Appellant to pursue a rezoning or general plan amendment. Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(D) provides that the City cannot require an applicant for a Builder’s Remedy project to apply for a general plan amendment or rezoning and the City has not done so here. The City deemed the application complete for processing without a general plan amendment or rezoning application. Thus, no violation of the HAA exists due to this claim.

More importantly, the HAA does not prohibit the applicability of voter approved initiatives, which have been upheld by the courts. In particular, Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591, held that municipal growth-control ordinances enacted by initiative are valid. As noted above and as set forth in the Inconsistency Letter, neither the HAA, nor its Builder’s Remedy provision, contain language indicating that the Legislature intended to weaken the electorate’s initiative power. Thus, the Voter Initiative requirement that voter approval is required prior to any residential development, remains in effect and must be considered as the processing of the application proceeds.

In addition, the Appellant’s reference to the findings required for denial of a project in the HAA is premature and irrelevant as no denial has been recommended or determined. The determination that the Voter Initiative applies to the project is not a disapproval of the Project. Rather, it is part of the required notice of inconsistencies mandated under Government Code 65589.5(j)(2)(A). The application remains under active, concurrent processing, and any future action on the Project will be taken by the appropriate decisionmaking body with the findings required by law.

Appeal Argument #1-C.

The appellant maintains that the housing projects are not subject to initiative as state law preempts local ordinances where the power of initiative violates the HAA.

Staff Response: The appellant is incorrect. There is nothing in the HAA that limits the applicability of lawfully adopted voter initiatives to housing projects. As noted in the City’s Inconsistency Letter and discussed above, State law does not allow development in contravention of voter initiatives. Courts will preserve the electorate’s initiative power in the absence of clear legislative intent from the Legislature to abrogate it. (See Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591, holding that municipal growth-control ordinances enacted by initiative are valid). Here, as noted above, neither the HAA, nor its Builder’s Remedy provision, contain express language indicating that the Legislature intended to weaken the electorate’s initiative power. Thus, the Voter Initiative remains in effect as to this proposed project.

8.h
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
8 Further, the court cases cited by the Applicant do not support Appellant’s position. These cases address challenges to initiatives; they do not address, nor invalidate, the applicability of a long-standing voter-adopted initiative. For example, Building Industry Association v. City of Oceanside, cited by Appellant, stands for the proposition that a voter initiative that directly conflicts with an existing general plan is void ab initio (invalid upon adoption) because the law conflicted with the city’s general plan and provisions of state law at the time it was adopted by voters. Here, the Voter Initiative has been lawfully in effect since 1983.

With regard to Oak Hill Park Company v. City of Antioch, it is an unpublished decision which carries no weight in a court of law. Moreover, similar to Building Industry Association v. City of Oceanside, this case involves a challenge to a measure prior to its taking effect. The developer challenged Antioch’s voter approved Measure T, which, among other things, restricted growth in portions of the City. The court struck down portions of Measure T because the measure conflicted with State law in effect at the time of adoption.

Contrary to the Appellant’s argument, there is nothing in the law that prohibits the City from enforcing a valid voter initiative adopted in compliance with the law.

Appeal Argument #1-D.

The appellant contends that having the Project be subject to a vote is a “backdoor” to requiring rezoning by initiative when rezoning is otherwise prohibited under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA.

Staff Response: This argument reiterates Appellant’s Appeal Argument #1-B. As set forth in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-B, the City is not in violation of the HAA by determining that the Voter Initiative applies to the project. The City has in fact complied with the HAA by providing an inconsistency notice, as required by Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A), and setting forth the City's positions as to project inconsistencies. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the City is not requiring a rezoning application to process this application. As discussed above in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-B, the City is merely setting forth its position that the Voter Initiative lawfully applies to the project and that the HAA does not abrogate the will of the electorate.

Appeal No. 1 Conclusion:

For the reasons set forth above, staff recommends denying the applicant’s appeal that the Voter Initiative applies to the proposed project and upholding the Community Development Director ’s determination that the Voter Initiative applies to the project.

8.h
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
9 Appeal No. 2 - Determination Regarding 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP)
In its Inconsistency Letter, the City determined that the 2025 LCLUP applies to the project because the Housing Crisis Act does not vest Local Coastal Land Use Plans. (Government Code sections 65589.5(o)(1), 65589.5(o)(4).) The Inconsistency Letter noted that the list of regulations that become vested as a result of a preliminary application is defined in the Housing Crisis Act, and only includes a general plan, specific plan, zoning, design review and subdivision standards, and impact fees, and does not list a Local Coastal Plan as one of the eligible regulations (Government Code §65589.5(o)(4)).

In addition, the Coastal Act mandates that a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) can only be issued if the project is consistent with the adopted LCLUP (Pub. Res. Code § 30604(b)).

The Inconsistency Determination further noted that case law supports the conclusion that housing-related laws, including the HAA, cannot be construed to relieve local agencies from complying with the Coastal Act, which means that the 2025 LCLUP applies. (See e.g., Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927; [see also New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCP00426 [same].) Moreover, the Coastal Commission confirmed its agreement with this interpretation in a letter dated February 18, 2026. In that letter, the Coastal Commission confirmed that the 2025 LCLUP applies even though the 1980 LCLUP was in effect on the date the preliminary application was deemed submitted.

The Appellant appealed this determination maintaining that the 2025 LCLUP is not applicable.

Appeal Argument #2-A.

The Appellant contends that its preliminary application vested the project with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on May 7, 2025, the date the preliminary application was deemed submitted. Moreover, they claim that because the 2025 LCLUP was not certified by the California Coastal Commission until May 8, 2025, one day later, project consistency must be measured against the coastal land use plan and policies in effect before the 2025 LCLUP update was adopted.

Staff Response: The Appellant has provided no legal authority to counter the City’s position that the 2025 LCLUP is applicable. As noted above, the HAA does not include the Coastal Act among the list of regulations vested by a preliminary application (Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(4)). Further, both the HAA and the Housing Crisis Act explicitly state that nothing in those provisions supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Specifically, Government Code Section 65589.5(e) specifically states that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve [a] local agency from complying with … the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources

8.h
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry / Planning Commission Staff Report
Determination Appeal File No. 2025-036
January 20, 2026
10 Code)." (emphasis added.) The Coastal Commission confirmed that the updated 2025 LCLUP applies to this project regardless of the date of the preliminary SB 330 submittal as set forth in its letter to the City dated February 18, 2026 (Attachment 1 to Attachment 1 within of Attachment 3).

Appeal Argument #2-B.

The Appellant maintains that the HAA provides that the statute must be interpreted to afford the "fullest possible weight" to housing (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L)), and that the Coastal Act and state housing laws must be harmonized.

Staff Response: The Legislature has already harmonized the statutes by including express savings clauses in the HAA preserving the Coastal Act in full (Government Code Section 65589.5(e)). Harmonizing the statutes means applying the vesting protections of the preliminary application to the City's general plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, and subdivision standards and criteria, while applying the Coastal Act, and the certified LCLUP that implements it (Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(4)). The provisions, however, must be those in effect at the time of coastal development review, namely the 2025 LCLUP. Applying the 2025 LCLUP does not limit the applicability of State housing laws and ensures compliance with the Coastal Act.

Conclusion:

For the reasons set forth above, staff recommends denying the applicant’s appeal that the 2025 LCLUP does not apply to the proposed project and upholding the Community Development Director ’s determination that the 2025 LCLUP applies to the project.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The Planning Commission's action on this appeal item is not subject to CEQA. A determination on an appeal of a consistency analysis determination does not constitute approval of a "project" as defined under CEQA as it will not cause a physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065). For reference, and as it relates to the formal development application submitted, the applicant has requested that the City initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the City is working on moving forward with contracting an CEQA Consultant to prepare an EIR for the proposed project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution Denying the Appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s determinations that the Project is subject to (1) Ordinance 391 C.S. and (2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan included within the Final Letter of Inconsistency dated June 05, 2026.

8.h
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (6305 : CC Appeal of Inconsistency Determinations-Resolution(Quarry /

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/28/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to revise the schedule for payments in lieu of providing Below Market Rate Units under the Inclusionary Housing Program and establishing annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index for San Franscico-Oakland-Hayward, CA

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to revise the schedule for payments in lieu of providing Below Market Rate Units under the Inclusionary Housing Program and establishing annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index for San FranscicoOakland-Hayward, CA; and Find the fee adoption exempt from California Environmental Quality Act.

STAFF CONTACT
Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Michael Christensen, Community Development Deputy Director (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On September 14, 2026,1the City Council held a public hearing and introduced an Ordinance to repeal and replace Article 41 Density Bonus Program and Article 47 City of Pacifica Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code) relating to the implementation of state density bonus law and regulations for inclusionary housing and below market rate units, and discussed proposed updates to City Council Resolution No. 24-20072(Attachment A) for inclusionary in-lieu fees.

The updates to the in-lieu fees would be based on the adjustments to the dollar amounts established in City Council Resolution No. 24-2007 and clarify the methodology for annual updates based on changes in median home values, Consumer Price Index, or the California Construction Cost Index. Under the 2007 resolution, the fees are set both by unit type and by the Area Median Income (AMI) of the unit. As such, fees were based on the cost of providing a replacement unit at 80 percent or 120 percent of AMI. Under the proposed revisions to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, rental units will be provided at 50 percent, 80 percent, and 110 percent of AMI, which when blended together, is an average of 80 percent of AMI. As the 2007 resolution did not anticipate the creation of 50 percent of AMI and 110 percent of AMI 1 City Council Agenda Packet, September 14, 2026:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1656&Inline=True 2 City Council Resolution No. 24-
2007: https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1730 9 Packet Pg. 338
Pacifica City Council 2
September 28, 2026
units staff are proposing a single average rate based on the 2007 80 percent of AMI rental fee, adjusted by CPI. For homeownership projects, there is no change in the AMI of units provided (80 percent and 120 percent of AMI), but since there will be a single rate for rental units, and to simplify administration of the fees, staff are recommending a simplification of the homeownership fees, by blending the 80 percent and 120 percent of AMI fees, which were adjusted by the changes in sales prices from 2007 to 2025. These new, revised fees set forth in the proposed resolution remain based on the already adopted methodology, and the annual adjustments going forward.

The City will likely consider substantive changes to the in-lieu fees, including methods of calculation, after the completion of the multi-jurisdictional Grand Nexus / Affordable Housing Study that is currently underway.

Table 1: In-Lieu Fee Adjustments
2007 In-Lieu Fee Resolution (Current) 2026 In-Lieu Fee Resolution (Proposed) In-lieu payment for a BMR Unit affordable to
Lower-Income Household (80% of AMI)
RENTAL: $349,566
FOR SALE:

Detached Single Family: $944,921
Condominium/Townhouse: $548,052
RENTAL: $205,416
FOR SALE:

Detached Single Family: $561,910
Condominium/Townhouse: $356,910
In-lieu payment for a BMR Unit affordable to
Moderate-Income Household (120% of AMI)
RENTAL: $26,732
FOR SALE:

Detached Single Family: $465,023
Condominium/Townhouse: $260,023

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The proposed fee adoption is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), including without limitation under the “Common Sense” exemption Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility their adoption may have a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Council could take no action on updating the Inclusionary in-lieu fees and wait until completion of the Residential Feasibility Study is completed. Given that the current resolution is 19 years old and does not account for the changes in affordability levels, staff does not recommend this approach. Updating the resolution with the adjusted amount increases transparency and predictability, and aligns with the programs adopted in the Housing Element.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORKPLAN
Updates to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance directly address City Council’s Strategic Plan goals and strategies, and Community Development’s workplan. 9 Packet Pg. 339
Pacifica City Council 3
September 28, 2026
Strategic Plan Goal No. 3: Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing Strategy C: Prioritize Housing Element program implementation and interim housing solutions. • Housing Element Programs:
o HE-I-2 Zoning Modernization and Streamlining
o HE-I-5 Fund a Housing Action Fund
o HE-I-6 Strengthen Inclusionary Housing
The update to the fee resolution contemporaneous with updating Article 47 Inclusionary Housing and BMR Housing Program provides clear and current information about the amount of in lieu fees that can be contributed to the City’s Housing In-Lieu Fund, which is a restricted fund to be used for purpose of providing funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing and inclusionary monitoring costs, as well as reasonable administration costs.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Updates to the In Lieu Fee Resolution does not have an immediate fiscal impact, as it would be implemented through standard development review which is primarily cost recovery. However, the changes to in lieu fees are expected to increase contributions to the City’s Housing In-Lieu Fund, improving the City’s ability to invest in affordable housing development and preservation.

ORIGINATED BY:

Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - CC Resolution No. 24-2007 In Lieu Fees (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 340
Pacifica City Council 4
September 28, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REVISING THE

SCHEDULE FOR PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF PROVIDING BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS

UNDER THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHING ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR SAN FRANCISCOOAKLAND-HAYWARD, CA WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has a below market rate ("BMR") (inclusionary) program pursuant to Article 47 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC); and
WHEREAS, PMC Section 9-4. 4705(b)(1) requires that the method of determining the amount of such "in-lieu" payments be set forth in a resolution adopted by the City Council at a level that reflects the estimated cost to provide BMR units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to moderate- and lower-income household in Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2007, the Pacifica City Council adopted resolution 24- 2007 establishing an in-lieu fee schedule based on standards set by the United States Department of Housing (HUD) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for determining the rents and housing prices that are affordable to Lower Income and Moderate Income Households, as defined in the ordinance, in the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, Resolution 24-2007 established that the in-lieu payment shall be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect any increase or decrease in the median housing sale prices in Pacifica and such other factors as the City Council determines are relevant; and
WHEREAS, as part of a general update to the below market rate program, the City Council is revising the income requirements of rental inclusionary units from 7.5 percent of the development’s units at 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and 7.5 percent of units at 120 percent of AMI to 5 percent of the development’s units at 50 percent of AMI, 5 percent at 80 percent of AMI, and 5 percent at 110 percent of AMI; and WHEREAS, as part of that same update, in-lieu payments will be required for any inclusionary fractional units with a decimal below 0.5.

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

SECTION 1. Change in Median Housing Prices in Pacifica. According to the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, the median price for a single-family dwelling in the City 9 Packet Pg. 341
Pacifica City Council 5
September 28, 2026
of Pacifica increased 84.0 percent between 2006 and 2025, from $720,000 to $1,325,000, and the median price for a condominium or town house increased 77.7 percent over the same period, from $515,000 to $915,000.

SECTION 2. Change in Consumer Price Index. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index increased 70.2 percent from 2006 to 2025 for all items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted).

SECTION 3. In-Lieu Payment Schedule. To reflect the increase in median home sales prices and the Consumer Price Index for all items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, recognize the changes in the annual median income (AMI) requirements for rental inclusionary units, require payments for fractional units, and simplify administration, the payment schedule for in-lieu fee for an on-site BMR unit shall be as follows:

Rental Unit: $349,566
For Sale Unit:

Detached Single Family: $944,921
Condominium/Townhouse: $548,052
SECTION 4. Fractional Units. Where a development is providing on-site units and a fractional unit of less than 0.5 units remains, the fee shall be the per-unit rate above, times the remaining fractional percentage.

SECTION 5. Annual Adjustments. For calendar year 2027 and each year thereafter, the inlieu fees shall be adjusted annually, as follows:
(A) The rental in-lieu fee shall be adjusted on March 1 of each year in proportion to any increase in the annual change for the previous calendar year in the in the Consumer Price Index for all items in San Francisco-OaklandHayward, CA (all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted), and posted by the Community Development Department after City Manager approval. (B) The in-lieu fee for condos/townhouses and single-family homeownership projects shall be adjusted on March 1 of each year by the most prior calendar year annual increase in Pacifica median home values, as published by the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, and posted by the Community Development Department after City Manager approval.

SECTION 6. Waiver and Variance Procedures. In-lieu payments are subject to the adjustment and waiver provisions of the waiver and variance procedures of Sec. 9-4.4711 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code.

SECTION 7. Use of Fees. Fees shall be segregated into a housing fund and used only for those purposes set forth in Article 47 of the Municipal Code.

SECTION 8. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), including 9 Packet Pg. 342
Pacifica City Council 6
September 28, 2026
without limitation under the “Common Sense” exemption Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility their adoption may have a significant effect on the environment. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption with the San Mateo County Clerk.

SECTION 9. Effective Date of Updated Fees. The updated fee amounts established by this Resolution shall be effective 60 days after adoption of this Resolution. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th day of September 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 9 Packet Pg. 343
RESOLUTION NO. 24- 2007

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE FOR PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF PROVIDING

BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS UNDER THE INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has instituted a below market rate (" BMR") inclusionary) program pursuant to the General Plan and the City' s Five Year Vision Statement, adding Article 47 to Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, outside of the City' s Redevelopment Project Area, a Developer of new housing may propose payment of money in -lieu of providing required affordable dwellings ; and
WHEREAS, Section 9- 4. 4706 requires that the method of determining the amount of such " in -lieu" payments be set from time to time by the City Council at a level that reflects the estimated cost to provide " Below Market Rate" (" BMR") units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to moderate and lower income household in Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD), and the California Department of Housing and Community Development HCD) have provided standards for determining the rents and housing prices that are affordable to Lower Income and Moderate Income Households, as defined in the ordinance, in the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area and the County of San Mateo;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Median Housing Prices in Pacifica. During 2006, the reported median price for a single family dwelling in the City of Pacifica was Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($ 720,000) and the median price for a condominium or town house was Five Hundred and Fifteen thousand Dollars 515, 000.)
SECTION 2. Moderate and Lower Household Incomes. For 2006, the annual income for moderate income for a family of four, using the bottom of the range, was $90, 501. The maximum annual income for a lower income family of four, using the bottom of the range, was $ 56, 551.

SECTION 3. Affordable Prices of "For Sale" Units. Applying HUD/ HCD affordability limits, and assuming a five percent down payment and a thirty- year mortgage at 6. 75%, the maximum price that a Moderate Income Household of four can pay for a home is Two Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-seven Dollars ($ 254, 977); the maximum price a Lower Income Household can pay is One Hundred Fifty -Eight Thousand and Ninety Dollars ($ 158,090.) The affordable price of any particular BMR unit will be calculated as part of the approval of each such unit and may be greater or smaller than the aggregate, average figures used to calculate in -lieu payments.

9.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment A - CC Resolution No. 24-2007 In Lieu Fees (6302 : Inclusionary In Lieu Fees Resolution) SECTION 4. Affordability Gap for " For Sale Units. If a required BMR unit is not provided on site, the in -lieu payment for each " for sale" unit shall be approximately equal to the difference between the sales price of an affordable unit and the median market sales price, as set forth below. This difference, the " affordability gap," shall be calculated separately for single family dwellings and each unit in a condominium/ town house project.

SECTION 5. Affordability Gap for Rental Units. If a required BMR unit is not provided on site, the in -lieu payment for each rental unit shall be approximately equal to the difference between the construction and operating cost of a multi -family rental unit, as established by the San Mateo County Housing Needs Study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems Inc., and the amount of capitalized net operating income generated by affordable rent, as established by the San Mateo County Housing Needs Study. This difference is the " affordability gap", as set forth below.

SECTION 6. In -Lieu Payment. If the City determines to accept payment in lieu of an on -site BMR unit, the payment schedule shall be as follows:

A. For a BMR Unit affordable to a Lower Income Household:

Rental Unit: $ 350, 000 ( Multi -Family Rental Unit Cost) 144, 584 ( Capitalized Net Operating Income)
205, 416 ( In -Lieu Payment)
For Sale Unit:

Detached Single Family: $ 720,000 (Market Rate Sales Price) 158, 090 ( Maximum Lower Income Sales Price)
561, 910 ( In -Lieu Payment)
Condominium/ Townhouse: $ 515, 000 ( Market Rate Sales Price) 158, 090 ( Maximum tower Income Sales Price)
356, 910 ( In -Lieu Payment)
B. For a BMR Unit affordable to a Moderate Income Household Rental Unit: $ 350,000 ( Multi -Family Rental Unit Cost) 323, 268 ( Capitalized Net Operating Income)
26, 732 ( In -Lieu Payment)
For Sale Unit:

Detached Single Family: $ 720, 000 ( Market Rate Sales Price) 254,977 (Maximum Moderate Income Sales Price)
465,023 ( In -Lieu Payment)
2-

9.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment A - CC Resolution No. 24-2007 In Lieu Fees (6302 : Inclusionary In Lieu Fees Resolution) Condominium/ Townhouse: $ 515, 000 ( Market Rate Sales Price) 254, 977 ( Maximum Moderate Income Sales Price)
260, 023 ( In -Lieu Payment)
SECTION 6. This payment schedule shall be in effect for Residential Developments for which the first building permit is issued on or after June 1, 2007. The payment is due and payable prior to occupancy of the first Market Rate Unit in the Residential Development.

SECTION 7. The in -lieu payment shall be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect any increase or decrease in the median housing sale prices in Pacifica and such other factors as the City Council determines are relevant.

SECTION 8. In -lieu payments are subject to the adjustment and waiver provisions of the waiver and variance procedures of Sec. 9- 4.4710 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code.

SECTION 9. Fees shall be segregated in to a housing trust fund and used only for those purposes set forth in Article 47 of the Municipal Code.

Passed and adopted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica held on the Twenty- ninth day of May, 2007, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST:

Ka by O' 4 onnell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a-za?
Cecilia Quick, City Attorney
Lancelle, Hinton & Vreeland
None
Digre & DeJarnatt
None
eeland, Mayor pro em
3-

9.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment A - CC Resolution No. 24-2007 In Lieu Fees (6302 : Inclusionary In Lieu Fees Resolution)

Pacifica City CouncilSeptember 28, 2026

Pacifica City Council
September 28, 2026