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.
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
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) 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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.