Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Crest Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies appeal, upholds voter-initiative and coastal plan for Coastal Crest (Rockaway Quarry)
Summary
The commission voted 5-0 (2 absent) to deny an appeal by the Preserve at Pacifica over staff's inconsistency determinations, finding the 1983 voter initiative (Ordinance 391CS) and the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan apply to the Coastal Crest Residences project at Rockaway Quarry.
Acting Chair Berman and the Planning Commission voted on Aug. 3 to deny an appeal filed by Preserve at Pacifica and its counsel, Alicia Guerra, upholding the Community Development Director's determinations that the Coastal Crest Residences project is subject to Ordinance 391CS and to the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
Samantha Updegrave, the city's community development director, summarized staff's review history and recommended denial. Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy explained the legal rationale: "Based on the ordinance and case law, the city's determination is that the voter initiative applies irrespective of invocation of the builder's remedy," and that staff found no violation of the Permit Streamlining Act in the city's processing. Murphy told the commission staff issued the final inconsistency determination within the 60-day consistency-review period and concluded that state housing laws do not automatically negate long-standing voter-adopted initiatives.
Appellant counsel Alicia Guerra told the commission her clients framed the appeal as a legal question under the builder's-remedy provisions and argued the project is "a 100% affordable" housing proposal. Guerra said the applicant's position is that "builder's-remedy projects are not subject to initiatives" and that the rules in effect when the application was deemed complete should govern coastal consistency. She reserved three minutes for rebuttal and reiterated the request that the commission grant the appeal to allow proceeding under state law.
After public comment largely urging denial and several clarifying questions of staff, Commissioner Davis moved to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the director's determinations; the motion was seconded and passed 5-0 with 2 commissioners absent. The commission record states the action is an appeal of consistency determinations, not an approval of the development project itself; any environmental review for the project would occur separately if and when a project approval is sought.
