CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/28/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s August 3, 2026, denial 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).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal, affirming the Planning Commission’s August 3, 2026, decision, 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 (Attachment A).
STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Christensen, Community Development Deputy Director (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
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 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.
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.
Pacifica City Council 2
September 28, 2026
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, which 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 or condition approval of a “housing development project” in a manner that renders the project infeasible, even if it is inconsistent with the City’s general plan and zoning ordinance, 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/planning-division/quarrysite-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 Gov’t Code Section 65941.1 vesting the laws in effect on that date 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 Planning Commission 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)
Pacifica City Council 3
September 28, 2026
Table 2: Formal Development Application Project Timeline Date Milestone
June 15, 2026 Applicant submitted Application to Appeal determinations that the Voter Initiative and 2025 LCLUP apply to project
(Attachment B)
August 3, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing on appeal; The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-007 denying the
appeal (Attachment H)
August 12, 2026 Applicant filed appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council (Attachment B)
September 28, 2026 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council (Subject of this staff report)
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).) As a general rule, 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 Pacifica City Council 4
September 28, 2026
of the Pacifica Municipal Code. It is these determinations that are the subject of the appeal now before the City Council.
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, 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 to Planning Commission and Planning Commission Action 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 PMC Section 9-4.3804 (Attachment G):
(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 did not include the remaining inconsistency items in the Inconsistency Letter, which the City indicated were not final appealable determinations.
On August 3, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal.
After receiving the staff report, testimony from the Appellant, and public comment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-007 by a vote of 4-0 with 2 absences denying the Appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s determinations that the Project is subject to (1) the Voter Initiative and (2) the 2025 LCLUP. The August 3, 2026, Planning Commission resolution and staff report are included as Attachments H and I, respectively.
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL:
On August 12, 2026, Buchalter LLP, on behalf of the Appellant, Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director’s decision, pursuant to PMC Section 9-
4.3804. The Appeal contests the two determinations in the Inconsistency Letter ("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 issues and arguments are summarized with a staff response below. Please note that the Appellant makes a number of arguments that apply to both of the City’s determinations Pacifica City Council 5
September 28, 2026
being appealed, which are addressed under both of the appealed determinations set forth 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., adopted as a voter initiative, 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). The 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.” The voters’ right of initiative and referendum is a reserved and inherent power of the people to make legislative decisions, which the courts “liberally construe” and “jealously guard.” (See California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 930, 934.) The California Supreme Court has, for example, upheld the enactment of an ordinance by voter initiative that prohibited issuance of building permits for residential projects until certain development-related standards were met. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 588.) The Court further explained that when the voters’ exercise of their power of initiative, e.g., with respect to zoning legislation, they are not subject to procedural requirements imposed on city governments with respect to such legislative acts. (Id. at 592, 594-596.) The Inconsistency Letter noted that State law does not allow development in contravention of voter initiatives and that courts will preserve the electorate’s power of initiative in the absence of clear authority and intent from the Legislature to limit or 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 or override the electorate’s initiative power.
To the contrary, the HAA expressly requires a City to identify and notify an applicant about inconsistencies with applicable ordinances, such as the Voter Initiative, once an application is deemed complete. Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A) provides that the City must give an applicant written documentation identifying any inconsistency with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or similar provision, along with the reason the City considers the project inconsistent.
Accordingly, the Inconsistency 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 – Preserve Appeals the City Determination that the Project is Subject to Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (Page 3 of the Appeal) Pacifica City Council 6
September 28, 2026
Appellant appeals the City’s determination that the Project is subject to the Voter Initiative.
Appellant maintains that the HAA prohibits the City from requiring a general plan amendment or rezoning, citing Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i). Appellant further argues that housing projects are not subject to initiative as state law preempts local ordinances where the power of initiative violates the HAA.
Staff Response: With respect to Appellant’s argument that HAA prohibits the City from requiring a general plan amendment or rezoning, the City is not requiring the Appellant to pursue a rezoning or general plan amendment. Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.” The City is not requiring the Appellant to apply for a general plan amendment or rezoning. 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.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that housing projects are not subject to initiative as state law preempts local ordinances where the power of initiative violates the HAA, the HAA does not prohibit the applicability of voter approved initiatives, which has been upheld by the courts. As mentioned above, Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591-592, 594-596, held that municipal growth-control ordinances enacted by initiative are valid, and not subject to procedural requirements imposed in city government with respect to such legislative acts. As also 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 limit or abridge the electorate ’s initiative power, or to subject the voters to rules imposed on city governments. To the contrary, the HAA expressly requires a City to identify and notify the Applicant about inconsistencies with applicable ordinances once an application is deemed complete and the Builder’s Remedy requires housing development projects to comply with state law—including the power of initiative reserved to the electorate and included in the California Constitution. (See Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(j)(2)(A), 65589.5(d)(3); New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 99 (denying builder’s remedy project that proposed uncertified land use in violation of state law).) Therefore, a developer cannot invoke the Builder’s Remedy to avoid compliance with the Voter Initiative, and 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.
Moreover, the purpose and effect of the Builder’s Remedy is to limit local governments’ land use authority over project applications where the local government had not timely satisfied its obligations to approve a certified Housing Element to plan for housing, as opposed to limiting the electorate’s power of imitative with respect to approval of a zoning change to allow residential use. Thus, whereas the Builder’s Remedy limits City’s authority, it does not limit the voters’ authority pursuant to the Voter Initiative. (See California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924 (Proposition 218 addressed local governments’ authority to adopt taxes, it did not address or affect the voters’ power of initiative to propose and adopt taxes).
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 longstanding 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. (Ordinance No. 391- C.S.)
Pacifica City Council 7
September 28, 2026
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-B - The Planning Commission’s Denial of Preserve’s Appeal of the City’s Determinations that the Project is Subject to a Vote and the 2025 LCLUP Constitute Project Denial. (Page 6 of the Appeal)
Appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appeal and upholding of the determinations that the Project is subject to a vote constitutes project denial. To support its argument, Appellant argues that the City effectively denied the Project because the City deemed the application complete but later indicated that the Project could not proceed without the voters approving residential use and compliance with the 2025 LCLUP. Appellant further contends that the voters would refuse to exercise their rights under the Voter Initiative to allow residential use.
Staff Response: As an initial matter, the very existence of this Appeal to the City Council refutes Appellant’s contention that the Project was denied upon the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appeal. Appellant has exercised their right to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, demonstrating that the Planning Commission’s action was not final. Further, the Planning Commission did not take any action on the Project itself. Rather, the Planning Commission only took action on the Appellant’s filed appeal of two determinations in the Inconsistency Letter.
Appellant is also incorrect that the City effectively denied the Project by determining that the application is complete and issuing the Inconsistency Letter. The City took no action to deny the Project, but rather followed State law procedures in conducting appropriate completeness and inconsistency review. Appellant correctly notes and cites to authority that provides that the City must “process” a Builder’s Remedy application, which is exactly what the City has done here.
Appellant also makes a speculative argument that the voters would deny the Project if it moved forward to a vote. First, how voters may respond to an initiative is not relevant to the City’s position that the Voter Initiative is applicable. Further, this contention is speculative on its face.
Courts have repeatedly recognized that parties and courts cannot presume to know how voters will ultimately decide issues when presented on the ballot, whether land uses, taxes and fees, or other matters are at issue. (See, e.g., Milagra Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 108, 118-120 (Pacifica voters’ rejection of an iteration of development project did not mean voters’ would never allow development); Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205, 220 (voters’ approval of initiative reducing rates for water service did not mean voters would thereafter reject higher water rates).
Appeal Argument #1-C – The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Determination Renders the Project Infeasible. (Page 7 of the Appeal)
Appellant argues that City Council denial of the Appeal would constitute a disapproval of the housing development project because it would render the project infeasible. Appellant maintains that, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, a local agency shall not apply an individual or combination of objective quantifiable, written development standards, conditions Pacifica City Council 8
September 28, 2026
and policies to the project that attempt to “deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(K).) Appellant further argues that if the City Council denies the Appeal, the City will have prevented reclamation from proceeding under the 1996 Reclamation Plan and denied the Builder’s Remedy project in violation of the Housing Crisis Act.
Staff Response: Appellant’s arguments are unsubstantiated. First, Appellant cites to the findings of the HAA, not operative provisions of the HAA. Second, as set forth in detail above in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-A, the City has complied with the HAA by setting forth the Project inconsistencies as required under State law. Lastly, as discussed in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-A, the HAA does not supersede voter initiatives.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the City is preventing reclamation of the site, the City has never indicated that the Appellant cannot proceed with reclamation. This Appeal is of the City’s determination that the Voter Initiative and the 2025 LCLUP apply to the Project. This issue does not impact the Appellant’s ability to reclaim the site in any manner. The City, in fact, approved the 1996 Reclamation Plan thirty years ago. However, the Appellant has never implemented its approved plan. The Appellant can move forward with that approved reclamation plan or an amended plan and is in no way restricted from pursuing reclamation of the Project site.
Further, Appellant’s argument that the prior reclamation plan was approved based on consistency with the City’s prior General Plan and the 1983 LCLUP, which Appellant argues allows residential uses, is not relevant to this Appeal. While this Project includes implementation of the 1996 Reclamation Plan, it also includes a housing development project which was not considered in 1996. Thus, this Project must be processed under the current applicable law.
Appeal Argument No. #1-D - The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Final Inconsistency is a Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose. (Page 8 of the Appeal)
Appellant maintains that City Council denial of the Appeal would constitute disapproval of the Project because the determinations are a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper cause.” Appellant argues that the Project cannot proceed in light of the City’s inconsistent administrative stances of deeming the Project application complete and noting Project inconsistencies with the City’s land use plans and zoning. Appellant further maintains that requiring the Project to proceed with the Voter Initiative is contrary to case authority declaring that the HAA supersedes local initiative and would render the Project economically infeasible.
Staff Response: Appellant is reiterating arguments addressed earlier in the Appeal, namely that the City has not followed the HAA in processing the Project application and that the HAA supersedes local initiative. As noted above in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-B, the City followed all legal requirements in processing the Project application and did not take any inconsistent actions. City staff reviewed the Project application against its completeness checklist and determined the application included all items in the checklist and was thus complete. Then, as required by the HAA, City staff reviewed the Project application for inconsistencies and properly notified Appellant of those inconsistencies. The City’s determinations are proper and necessary to ensure consistency with the will of the voters as expressed in the Voter Initiative and the 2025 LCLUP adopted as required by the Coastal Act.
Further, as set forth in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-A, the HAA does not supersede local initiatives, including the Voter Initiative. Further, Appellant’s argument that the City’s actions would render the Project economically infeasible are irrelevant to this Appeal.
Pacifica City Council 9
September 28, 2026
There is nothing in the law, or cited in the Appeal, that requires cities to ignore local initiatives if they would render a non-compliant project economically infeasible.
Appeal Argument #1-E – The City’s Determination that the Project Cannot Proceed Without a Vote Constitutes a Denial. (Page 9 of the Appeal) Appellant maintains that the City’s determination that the Project cannot proceed without a vote constitutes a denial of the Project. Appellant argues that a City Council vote to deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the City’s Final Inconsistency Determination “pushes the Project into an immovable object, because it forecloses reclamation of the Property under the 1996 Reclamation Plan and repudiates the Builder’s Remedy project in violation of the HAA and the Housing Crisis Act.” Appellant contends that the City risks liability for a takings (inverse condemnation) if the City Council does not grant the appeal, on the theory that denial; would “result in the conversion of private property into the equivalent of a habitat preserve, even though prior permits and agreements in effect on the Property since the 1990s contemplated that the landowner would be able to proceed with future development.” Staff Response: This argument basically reiterates previous arguments raised that the denial of the Appeal would foreclose reclamation and repudiate the Builder’s Remedy. As discussed above in the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-C, the City has not foreclosed reclamation.
Further, as discussed throughout this staff report, the City has not violated the HAA or the Housing Crisis Act.
Further, denial of the Appeal does not constitute denial of the Project. And even if denial of the Appeal arguably constituted denial of the Project, Appellant would still have a whole host of potential development options, including options that do not require voter approval to allow for residential use. The state and federal courts have repeatedly explained that where the denial of an application (or multiple applications) leaves open the possibility of development (e.g., by approval of a revised application that addresses concerns or problems associated with the prior application), the government has neither reached a firm, final administrative decision as to the scope of development nor precluded development. (See, e.g., MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v.
Yolo County (1986) 477 U.S. 340; Lake Nacimiento Ranch Co. v. San Luis Obispo County (9th Cir. 1987) 841 F.2d 872; N. Mill St., LLC v. City of Aspen (10th Cir. 2021) 6 F.4th 1216; Toigo v.
Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309.) Moreover, this holds true irrespective of the developer’s or property owner’s preferences as to what to develop. (See, e.g., County of Alameda v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 558; City and County of San Francisco v.
Golden Gate Heights Investments (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1203.) Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, staff recommend that the City Council deny the appeal as to the Voter Initiative, affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, and uphold the Community Development Director’s determination that the Voter Initiative applies to the project.
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 Pacifica City Council 10 September 28, 2026
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 (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 99.) 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 – Preserve Appeals the Determination that the Project is Subject to the 2025 LCLUP (Page 4 of the Appeal)
Appellant appeals the determination that the Project is subject to the 2025 LCLUP. 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.
Appellant further maintains that case law does not support the City’s position that the Project is subject to the 2025, rather than the 1980, LCLUP.
Staff Response: Appellant’s argument that the Project is subject to the 1980 LCLUP is incorrect.
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 Code)." (emphasis added.) As the Court of Appeal recently explained when rejecting an applicant’s claim that another city’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan was inapplicable to its Builder’s Remedy application, Local Coastal Land Use Plans effectuate provisions and obligations of the California Coastal Act. (New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 99.) Although the New Commune DTLA LLC case did not directly address the issue of the vesting of an LCLUP, it upholds the requirement that projects must comply with the Coastal Act and a City’s LCLUP. Here, to properly effectuate and implement the Coastal Act, the City thus must apply the 2025 LCLUP to the project. The Coastal Commission also 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 E).
Further, the Legislature has included express savings clauses in the HAA preserving the Coastal Act in full (Government Code Section 65589.5(e)). Harmonizing the Coastal Act and the HAA requires the City to apply 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.
Pacifica City Council 11 September 28, 2026
Appeal Argument #2-B - The Planning Commission’s Denial of Preserve’s Appeal of the City’s Determinations that the Project is Subject to a Vote and the 2025 LCLUP Constitute Project Denial. (Page 6 of the Appeal)
Appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appeal and upholding of the determinations that the Project is subject to the 2025 LCLUP constitutes project denial.
Staff Response: Please see the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-B.
Appeal Argument #2-C -The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Determination Renders the Project Infeasible. (Page 7 of the Appeal)
Appellant argues that City Council denial of the Appeal would constitute a disapproval of the housing development project because it would render the project infeasible. Appellant maintains that, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, a local agency shall not apply an individual or combination of objective quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies to the project that attempt to “deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(K).) Appellant further argues that if the City Council denies the Appeal, the City will have prevented reclamation from proceeding under the 1996 Reclamation Plan and denied the Builder’s Remedy project in violation of the Housing Crisis Act.
Staff Response: Please see the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-C.
Appeal Argument No. #2-D - The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Final Inconsistency is a Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose. (Page 8 of the Appeal)
Appellant maintains that City Council denial of the Appeal would constitute disapproval of the Project because the determinations are a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper cause.” Appellant argues that the Project cannot proceed in light of the City’s inconsistent administrative stances of deeming the Project application complete and noting Project inconsistencies with the City’s land use plans and zoning.
Staff Response: Please see the Staff Response to Appeal Argument #1-D.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, staff recommend that the City Council deny the appeal as to the 2025 LCLUP, affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, and uphold the Community Development Director’s determination that the 2025 LCLUP applies to the Project.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
The City Council'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 Pacifica City Council 12 September 28, 2026
working on moving forward with contracting a CEQA Consultant to prepare an EIR for the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council's action on this appeal is limited to the two inconsistency determinations. The following alternatives to the recommended action to deny the appeal are available:
1. Grant the appeal in its entirety. The City Council may grant the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission's decision, determining that the Project is subject to neither the Voter Initiative nor the 2025 LCLUP. Because the proposed resolution contains findings supporting denial of the appeal, this action would require the City Council to make and adopt findings supporting that determination, and for staff to return at a subsequent meeting with a resolution containing those findings. Staff has not identified legal authority supporting such findings, and notes that a determination that the 2025 LCLUP does not apply would be inconsistent with the California Coastal Commission's letter to the City dated February 18, 2026.
2. Grant the appeal in part. The two determinations are independent of one another, and the City Council may act on each separately, upholding one determination while reversing the other. As with Alternative 2, this action would require staff to return with a revised resolution containing Council’s supporting findings.
None of the actions above approves or denies the Project or any of the associated permit applications. The City will continue to process the application, including coordination of CEQA review, regardless of the action taken on this appeal.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
This appeal is not a specific item in the City Council's Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Strategic Plan and Priority Workplan. Processing development applications, including appeals of administrative determinations, is a standard course of business function of the Community Development Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the City Council's action on this appeal. The hearing is on the inconsistency determinations rather than on the Project itself.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL: Move to ADOPT the proposed resolution denying the appeal, affirming the Planning Commission’s August 3, 2026, decision, 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.
ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
ATT B - Appeal to City Council 206-08-12-CC (PDF)
ATT C - 2026-06-05_Final Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (PDF) Pacifica City Council 13 September 28, 2026
ATT D - OrdinanceNo391-CS_RezoneQuarry_1983-11-08-CC (PDF) ATT E - 2026-02-18_Coastal Crest Residences - Coastal Commission Comment Letter-CC (PDF)
ATT F - 2026-04-28_Initial Project Inconsistencies-Coastal Crest_File No 2025-036-CC (PDF) ATT G - Letter Appeal to Planning Commission Re Coastal Crest Residences_2026-06-15-CC (PDF)
ATT H - PC Resolution 2026-007_2026-08-03-CC (PDF)
ATT I - Planning Commission Staff Report,_ 2026-08-03-CC (DOCX) Pacifica City Council 14 September 28, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY PRESERVE @ PACIFICA, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S AUGUST 3, 2026 DECISION, 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 (CDP477-25), 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); and
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; and
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 Pacifica City Council 15 September 28, 2026
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 2025 LCLUP (the "Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026- 007 by a vote of 5-0 with 2 absences denying the Planning Commission Appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s determinations that the Project is subject to Ordinance No. 391-C.S. and the 2025 LCLUP; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2026, Buchalter LLP, on behalf of Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC, timely filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission’s August 3, 2026, decision to the City Council pursuant to Section 9-4.3804 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 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, the record of the August 3, 2026, Planning Commission hearing, and the Staff Report, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council 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 City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, oral and written comments and testimony, and other related materials in the record at the September 28, 2026, City Council public hearing.
3. CEQA Review. The City Council of the City of Pacifica finds that its action on this Appeal is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it will not cause a physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Pacifica City Council 16 September 28, 2026
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 City Council 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 City Council finds as follows:
i. Appeal Argument #1-A - Preserve Appeals the City Determination that the Project is Subject to Ordinance No. 391-C.S. (Page 3 of the Appeal).
The HAA prohibits the City from requiring a general plan amendment or rezoning. Further, housing projects are not subject to initiative as state law preempts local ordinances where the power of initiative violates the HAA.
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 or override the electorate’s initiative power. Thus, the Voter Initiative requirement that voter approval is required prior to any residential development, remains in effect.
ii. Appeal Argument #1-B: - The Planning Commission’s Denial of Preserve’s Appeal of the City’s Determinations that the Project is Subject to a Vote and the 2025 LCLUP Constitute Project Denial. (Page 6 of the Appeal).
The City effectively denied the Project because the City deemed the application complete but later indicated that the Project could not proceed without the voters approving residential use and compliance with the 2025 LCLUP. The voters would refuse to exercise their rights under the Voter Initiative to allow residential use
Finding: The Planning Commission did not take any action on the Project itself. Rather, the Planning Commission only took action on the Appellant’s filed appeal of two determinations in the Inconsistency Letter.
Further, the City has taken no action to deny the Project, but rather followed State law procedures in conducting appropriate completeness and inconsistency review. Lastly, the argument that the voters would deny the Project if it moved forward to a vote is speculative and not relevant to the City’s position that the Voter Initiative is applicable. iii. Appeal Argument #1-C: – The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Determination Renders the Project Infeasible. (Page 7 of the Appeal).
Pacifica City Council 17 September 28, 2026
Pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, a local agency shall not apply an individual or combination of objective quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies to the project that attempt to “deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(K).) Further, if the City Council denies the Appeal, the City will have prevented reclamation from proceeding under the 1996 Reclamation Plan and denied the Builder’s Remedy project in violation of the Housing Crisis Act
Finding: The City has complied with the HAA by setting forth the Project inconsistencies as required under State law. Lastly, as discussed in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-A, the HAA does not supersede voter initiatives. Lastly, the City has never indicated that the Appellant cannot proceed with reclamation. The City, in fact, approved the 1996 Reclamation Plan thirty years ago. However, Appellant has never implemented its approved plan. Appellant can move forward with that approved reclamation plan or an amended plan and is in no way restricted from pursuing reclamation of the Project site. iv. Appeal Argument No. #1-D - The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Final Inconsistency is a Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose. (Page 8 of the Appeal).
The Project cannot proceed in light of the City’s inconsistent administrative stances of deeming the Project application complete and noting Project inconsistencies with the City’s land use plans and zoning.
Further, requiring the Project to proceed with the Voter Initiative is contrary to case authority declaring that the HAA supersedes local initiative and would render the Project economically infeasible.
Finding: As found above in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-B, the City followed all legal requirements in processing the Project application and did not take any inconsistent actions. The City’s determinations are proper and necessary to ensure consistency with the will of the voters as expressed in the Voter Initiative and the 2025 LCLUP adopted as required by the Coastal Act. Further, as set forth in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-A, the HAA does not supersede local initiatives, including the Voter Initiative. Further, Appellant’s argument that the City’s actions would render the Project economically infeasible are irrelevant to this Appeal.
v. Appeal Argument #1-E – The City’s Determination that the Project Cannot Proceed Without a Vote Constitutes a Denial. (Page 9 of the Appeal).
A City Council vote to deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the City’s Final Inconsistency Determination forecloses reclamation of the Property under the 1996 Reclamation Plan and repudiates the Builder’s Remedy project in violation of the HAA and the Housing Crisis Act. Further, the City risks liability for a takings (inverse condemnation) if the City Council does not grant the Appeal.
Pacifica City Council 18 September 28, 2026
Finding: As found above in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-C, the City has not foreclosed reclamation. Further, the City has not violated the HAA or the Housing Crisis Act, as found above in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-A. Further, denial of the Appeal does not constitute denial of the Project. And even if denial of the Appeal arguably constituted denial of the Project, Appellant would still have a whole host of potential development options, including options that do not require voter approval to allow for residential use. Thus, there is no risk of a taking.
b. With respect to Appeal No. 2 - Determination Regarding 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), the City Council finds as follows:
i. Appeal Argument #2-A – Preserve Appeals the Determination that the Project is Subject to the 2025 LCLUP (Page 4 of the Appeal).
The Project 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. 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. Further, case law does not support the City’s position that the Project is subject to the 2025, rather than the 1980, LCLUP
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. Local Coastal Land Use Plans effectuate provisions and obligations of the California Coastal Act, which the City accomplishes pursuant to tis 2025 LCLUP. 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 Planning Commission’s Denial of Preserve’s Appeal of the City’s Determinations that the Project is Subject to a Vote and the 2025 LCLUP Constitute Project Denial. (Page 6 of the Appeal).
The City effectively denied the Project because the City deemed the application complete but later indicated that the Project could not proceed without the voters approving residential use and compliance with the 2025 LCLUP.
Finding: The Planning Commission did not take any action on the Project itself. Rather, the Planning Commission only took action on the Appellant’s filed appeal of two determinations in the Inconsistency Letter.
Pacifica City Council 19 September 28, 2026
Further, the City has taken no action to deny the Project, but rather followed State law procedures in conducting appropriate completeness and inconsistency review.
iii. Appeal Argument #2-C: – The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Determination Renders the Project Infeasible. (Page 7 of the Appeal).
Pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, a local agency shall not apply an individual or combination of objective quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies to the project that attempt to “deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(K).) Further, if the City Council denies the Appeal, the City will have prevented reclamation from proceeding under the 1996 Reclamation Plan and denied the Builder’s Remedy project in violation of the Housing Crisis Act
Finding: The City has complied with the HAA by setting forth the Project inconsistencies as required under State law. Lastly, as discussed in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-A, the HAA does not supersede voter initiatives. Lastly, the City has never indicated that the Appellant cannot proceed with reclamation. The City, in fact, approved the 1996 Reclamation Plan thirty years ago. However, Appellant has never implemented its approved plan. Appellant can move forward with that approved reclamation plan or an amended plan and is in no way restricted from pursuing reclamation of the Project site. iv. Appeal Argument No. #2-D - The City Council’s Denial of the Appeal is a “Disapproval of the Housing Project” within the meaning of 65589.5 because the City’s Final Inconsistency is a Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose. (Page 8 of the Appeal).
The Project cannot proceed in light of the City’s inconsistent administrative stances of deeming the Project application complete and noting Project inconsistencies with the City’s land use plans and zoning.
Finding: As found above in the Finding to Appeal Argument #1-B, the City followed all legal requirements in processing the Project application and did not take any inconsistent actions. The City’s determinations are proper and necessary to ensure consistency with the will of the voters as expressed in the Voter Initiative and the 2025 LCLUP adopted as required by the Coastal Act.
5. Denial of Appeal. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s August 3, 2026, decision, and uphold the Community Development Director’s determinations that the Project is subject to: (1) Ordinance No. 391-C.S., and (2) the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan, based on the record of the Planning Commission Appeal and the Appeal, and the findings set forth above. * * * * *
Pacifica City Council 20 September 28, 2026
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.
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Christine Boles
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey Michelle Marchetta Kenyon
City Clerk City Attorney