Pacifica Council Keeps Voter-Approval Rule for 1,225-Unit Quarry Project

Pacifica's City Council voted unanimously Sept. 28, 2026, to keep a 1983 voter-approval requirement in force for a 1,225-unit builder's remedy project at the former Rockaway Quarry. The applicant's attorney warned the decision could end the project. The council also updated affordable housing in-lieu fees for the first time since 2007, while residents clashed over the Measure BB sales tax and a possible sale of city land on Beach Boulevard.

• Coastal Crest appeal denied 5-0. The quarry project remains subject to Ordinance 391-CS and the 2025 coastal plan.

• Every public speaker urged denial, including a union representative and a renter who wants affordable housing.

• In-lieu fees now float with the market. Rental fees are tied to Bay Area inflation, and ownership fees to Pacifica home prices.

• Measure BB draws split public comment ahead of the November vote on a 1% sales tax.

• Three residents oppose selling 2212 Beach Boulevard for a hotel, citing coastal hazards and secrecy.

1 Big Thing: Quarry Housing Still Needs Pacifica Voters

The basics: Ordinance 391-CS, adopted by Pacifica voters in 1983, zones the former Rockaway Quarry C-3 commercial. It requires a vote of the people for any residential development there. The Preserve at Pacifica filed a builder's remedy application under the state Housing Accountability Act (HAA) for 1,225 rental units, which it describes as 100% affordable, plus reclamation of the site.

Why it matters: The dispute pits a 43-year-old voter ordinance against state housing law, a test with implications beyond Pacifica.

Where things stand: Staff stressed the narrow scope of the hearing. Deputy Director of Community Development Michael Christensen clarified that no option in front of the council approved or denied the project. Environmental review under an environmental impact report continues regardless of the outcome.

Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy argued the state's Housing Crisis Act bars new initiatives that prohibit housing but does not reach older ones.

"There's nothing in the HAA that limits the voters' initiative power, and courts protect that power and require clear legislative intent to limit it, which was not present here," she said.

On the coastal question, staff said preliminary applications lock in local zoning and fees but not the state Coastal Act or the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The applicant's preliminary application was deemed submitted May 7, 2025, one day before the 2025 plan was certified on May 8. Staff cited a Coastal Commission letter confirming the 2025 plan applies.

The other side: Alicia Guerra, land use partner at Buchalter and counsel for The Preserve at Pacifica, argued state law since 2019 overrides local bans on housing. She said the 1980 coastal plan, which contemplated some residential use, was locked in when the application was filed, and she called the one-day gap a coincidence.

"These two legal issues are fundamental as to whether there's a project or not that can even go forward," she said.

Mayor Christine Boles pushed back on the idea that voters would inevitably say no. "I kind of resent the implication and the appeal that it's a foregone conclusion that it would never be approved," she said.

A united public front: No member of the public spoke for the appeal. "I typically am a ferocious advocator for housing. In this case, however, I'm asking the council to please deny this," said Scott Beal, business representative for the Plumbers and Air Conditioning Union (San Mateo County). He said the developer had not responded to labor outreach.

Peter Loeb, a former councilmember who served from 1982 to 1990, said the quarry was intended mainly for visitor-serving commercial use. "If the Housing Accountability Act can overturn an ordinance of any city that's been longstanding ... 43 years ago, then there's something terribly anti-democratic about that," he said. Kata Gomes, a Ramaytush descendant, called the site unceded ancestral land. Sam Casillas noted that voters rejected quarry housing by more than 5,000 votes the last time it went to the ballot.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Councilmember Mayra Espinosa moved staff's resolution, and Councilmember Mary Bier seconded. It passed 5-0 (For: Boles, Wright, Bier, Espinosa, Beckmeyer. Against: 0. Absent: 0).

Open space advocates and supporters of the voter requirement won this round. The applicant now faces a ballot hurdle for any housing on the site.

What's next: Staff is soliciting an environmental review consultant. Staff also noted the applicant has not yet filed an HAA disapproval notice under Government Code 65589.5. Such a notice is a possible next step toward a legal fight.

Affordable Housing Fees Get First Update Since 2007

Why it matters: Developers who skip building below-market-rate (BMR) units on site pay fees instead. Pacifica's fee schedule dated to 2007, and members recalled projects that paid far too little.

Where things stand: Deputy Director of Community Development Michael Christensen and Tim Davis, a consultant with the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART), presented the new schedule. Rental fees will be indexed to the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Consumer Price Index. Ownership fees will track Pacifica median home sales prices.

"It's actually the Pacifica-specific area median house prices that are being used," Davis said. He also clarified that the CPI region includes San Mateo County.

Vice Mayor Greg Wright sought assurance the fee applies to each unit not built. "I don't want any loopholes in the future that some big project pays one fee," he said. Staff confirmed it does. One councilmember cited the Harmony One development as a case where fees proved far too low.

The other side: Another member said she would rather receive actual units than fees, except for fractional units. Staff said state law requires offering alternatives. However, the new inclusionary ordinance, adopted on consent earlier that evening, raises BMR requirements for developers who choose alternatives and requires council approval of in-lieu payments. That "should hopefully help incentivize developers to build on-site," said staff from the City Attorney's office.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The resolution passed 5-0 on a motion by Bier, seconded by Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer. No one spoke during public comment. Affordable housing funds gain value as fees track the market. Developers lose the benefit of 2007-era rates.

What's next: A full nexus study is underway and could change the methodology. Members said construction cost indexing could be considered at that time.

Sales Tax, Beach Boulevard Split Public Comment

Why it matters: Residents are weighing a November sales tax and the future of city-owned coastal land at the same time.

Where things stand: Tiger Jazz Twirls Big Stick, a former councilmember, urged a yes vote on Measure BB, a 1% sales tax. He stated that the estimated cost of Measure BB would be about $7/month for the average Pacifican.

Connie Menefee of Park Pacifica said the measure would raise about $5 million a year. She said matching that through hotel taxes would require more than 600 hotel rooms.

"We currently have about 270 hotel rooms in town, so we need to more than triple that number," she said.

The other side: Lori Goldberg said she will vote no. She tied her position to frustration over unpermitted grading and habitat loss in Vallemar.

Meanwhile, year-end figures approved on the consent calendar showed revenue at 105% of projections, spending at about 93% of budget and hotel occupancy taxes at 126% of projections.

Beach Boulevard: Three speakers opposed a possible sale of 2212 Beach Boulevard, the site of the council chambers and a storage yard, to a hotel developer. The city's closed session with its real property negotiators produced no reportable action.

"For the past few months, this council has been negotiating the potential sale of these publicly owned council chambers and storage yard without the input of the community," said Sam Casillas, public commenter.

Brian Romero pitched a public town square instead. Lila Ranero cited documented voids under the promenade.

What's next: The council did not respond to the Beach Boulevard comments. Measure BB goes to voters in November.

• Consent calendar approved 5-0 (Bier/Wright), finalizing the new inclusionary housing and density bonus ordinances.

• $870,000 Ocean Protection Council grant will fund Pacifica's mandatory coastal adaptation plan.

• Bike and safety funding: Oceana Boulevard bike lanes are fully funded at $750,000, and a Crespi Drive-Highway 1 safety project received $251,319.

• Homelessness count: Anita Reese, executive director of the Pacifica Resource Center, reported 84 people in nine encampments. Speakers backed expanding safe parking and opposed renewing the Flock camera contract.

• Proclamations: The council recognized Domestic Violence Awareness Month (CORA's 24/7 hotline: 800-300-1080), Fire Prevention Month and Arlene Patton's open space service.

Looking ahead: The Coastal Commission is scheduled to certify Pacifica's permit modifications at its Oct. 9 meeting. North County Fire Authority hosts an open house Saturday, Oct. 10, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Station 72, 1100 Linda Mar Blvd. Measure BB is on the November ballot.