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;
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:
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 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. * * * * *
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