Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair Hauser is out today, so our Vice Chair Berman will be acting as chair. Chair Berman?

Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to the August 3rd Planning Commission meeting. Can I start with a roll call?

Chair Berman?

Present.

Commissioner Davis?

Present.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Present.

Commissioner Redfield? Present. Commissioner Fisher?

Here.

Here. And we have Commissioner Ferguson-Apson and Chair Houser.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis, can you lead us in the salute to the flag? Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,

Thank you. Thank you. Before we get into administrative business, which is the approval of the order of agenda, approval of minutes, which looks like we probably don't have any, and designation of liaison, I'm going to start with a note on how we're going to conduct tonight's meeting. Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city, and comments on agendized items must relate to that specific item. If comments do not fall into one of these categories, the city will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic. If the warning is not followed, the chair, myself, will direct the city clerk or city staff to cut off the microphone. And throughout this warning system, I will seek the assistance of the assistant city attorney in identifying comments not related to the agenda item or not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. All right, so for administrative business, are there any public comments on the administrative business? So that's just the order of agenda, minutes, which I don't think there are any, or designation of liaison. And if you have any comments and you're in the room, you could fill out one of these yellow cards, or you could come up to staff, not seeing anyone in the room. How about online? Anyone online? who may be raising their hand. There's no raised hands. Okay. And if you're calling in, I believe you pressed star nine to raise your hand. All right, I'm going to close the public comment period for administrative business and move on to the order of agenda. Do we have a motion to approve the order of agenda?

Make a motion we approve the order of the agenda.

Is there a second? Second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please vote.

I think we're missing one more vote.

Do you want to reset it?

It's this one right here.

Oh, my bad. Got it. No, it's okay. I think you can leave it up there.

Motion made by Commissioner Redfield, second by Commissioner Sanchez, and that motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you. Minutes, are there any minutes? It doesn't look like there are any. We didn't review any. We do not have minutes. We'll have them at the next hearing. Great. designation of liaison So we do require a designation of liaison for the City Council meeting on August 24th And it'll be reviewing the density bonus and inclusionary housing ordinance. I believe that we had Commissioner Redfield and chair Hauser Mentioned that they'd be able to attend that.

Yes, and I just wanted to put it on the agenda and just confirm that I did talk to Chair Hauser, and she confirmed that she's still available. And Commissioner Redfield, we'd like to just verify your availability still. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next, we'll have oral communications. So this segment is for any public comments on non-agendized items. So nothing on the agenda. Anyone in the... And let me look at my cards here. Not seeing anyone in the room. How about anyone online?

There are no raised hands online either.

All right. And as a reminder, you can raise your hand by pressing star 9. OK. I'm going to close oral communications and move on to consent items. So consent item. CDP 479-26, file number 2026-005, Emergency Coastal Development Permit, CDP 479-26, to authorize the installation of a retaining wall to stabilize the soil at the site of a property alongside Belfast at 400 Belfast Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 023026, 040. Recommended CEQA action is not applicable and recommended action is receive and file.

Can we have a staff report on this? Chair Berman, we did not prepare a staff report for consent items typically, but I'd be happy to answer any questions if the commission has any. Any questions?

Just one if I may, Chair. THIS IS AN EXTENSION, I BELIEVE, SECOND OR THIRD EXTENSION ON THIS PROJECT. IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER REDFIELD. WE DID ISSUE AN ECDP PREVIOUSLY. THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE TO SECURE A CONTRACTOR IN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TIME. I BELIEVE THEY ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE WORK. SO NOW THAT THEY HAVE SECURED A CONTRACTOR, WE'VE ISSUED A SECOND ECDP.

I THINK I SAW THE DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 22ND ON THAT FOR COMPLETION OF THAT, I BELIEVE, WAS THE DATE.

I CAN REVIEW.

SO WE DO HAVE A SECURED CONTRACTOR?

I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A SECURED CONTRACTOR NOW, YES.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I KNOW THAT WE DID RECEIVE A PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMISSION ON THIS ITEM. Are we able to open public comment right now to accept any public comments on the consent item? Yes. Yes. All right. So I'll open public comment for consent item number one. I don't have any cards for this agenda item. If anyone's in the room could jump up. Not seeing anyone. How about online?

There's no raise hands online. OK.

THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT TO COMMISSIONER REDFIELD'S QUESTION ON PACKET PAGE 6, THE APPLICATION. THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT THE WORK BE FINALIZED BY SEPTEMBER 22.

SO I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. In reviewing one of the public comments that was submitted to us, it looks like there is a large probably cypress tree, I believe it was, that is in this limit of work that may impact the feasibility of installing the wall. And there was concerns expressed for safety. I'm wondering... Is there an avenue for the contractor to remove this tree in an expeditious way in implementing this emergency CDP?

Thank you, Chair Berman. Tree removal is not proposed as part of this project. This is strictly for the retaining wall. The tree in question is a city-owned tree, so it's located completely within the right-of-way. We have had two arborist reports confirm that the tree is healthy. And we actually had an arborist go out and look at it again today. They are required to get a tree encroachment permit because they'll be doing work within 50 feet of a tree. And I believe they filed that application today. And so that will include the tree protection measures that are required during construction.

OK. Was it the city arborist's opinion that the wall can be constructed then without impacting the tree? Implied by the tree protection measures, I'm sure, but just to explicitly ask.

The arborist reports looked at the condition of the tree itself, but the retaining wall is outside of the tree area. So then it's believed that the retaining wall could be built without impacting the tree?

Yeah. Okay. Correct.

Okay.

Those were all my questions.

So I think it's news that it's a city-owned tree. That's helpful to know that. And you said there were two arborist reports that have been done on it, and they said that the tree is healthy? Healthy. That's correct. Did they comment at all about the stability of the tree? Because a tree can be healthy but not in a stable location.

I can look up those details for you. The tree was not recommended for removal at this time.

If I could know where I might be able to review that, that would be helpful. Not tonight, obviously.

I can send you that information. Thank you.

If no other questions, do we require a vote for receiving and filing of this?

Yes, because it's a consent item.

Okay. Is there a motion for approval of the consent items as proposed?

I move that we approve the consent item as proposed.

I second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Motion made by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Redfield, and that motion passes 5-0 to absent.

Just to clarify, Commissioner Fisher provided the second.

Apologies. Just for the record, seconded by Commissioner Fisher. Thank you.

All right, on to our new public hearing item, file number 2025-036, 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 two, the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The Coastal Crest Project is an application for a Coastal Development Permit, CDP 47725, Site Development Permit, PSD 87625, development plan DP9225, specific plan SP19225, tree permit TP1425, and sign permit S13825 for development of 1,225 rental dwelling units in 20 apartment buildings and 26 townhomes on an approximately 86 86.39 acre site comprised of three undeveloped parcels, assessor parcel numbers 018-150-110, 018-150-120, 018-150-150, known as Coastal Crest Residences, file number 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. And before we continue, I'm going to read some notes as a reminder on how we will conduct the meeting for the public hearing. First, I want to note that this is not hearing on the proposed project itself. It is an appeal hearing on two discrete issues regarding the applications consistency with local regulations. Like any appeal hearing, both the appellant and members of the public will be given an opportunity to speak. Second, I want to provide an overview of how the hearing will proceed. The item will start with city staff presenting a staff report and commission may ask questions of staff. I will then open the public hearing. The appellant will be given an opportunity to present and the commission will have an opportunity to ask questions of the appellant. Following commission questions, we'll take public comments where members of the public will be allowed to speak. After public comment, the appellant will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. If you wish to speak, please fill out a speaker card, which I have a few, but if you haven't filled one out yet, please fill them out. They're in the back of the room, and you can hand them to staff up here. For members of the public who are participating via Zoom, you will be asked to raise your hand prior to the start of public comment and should do so at that time. So if you're calling in, please be ready to raise your hand when prompted. And you could press star 9 to raise your hand if you're calling in via phone. All right. Then can we please have a staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Berman. Good evening, Commissioners. Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director. And I'm joined this evening by Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy. And we'll be presenting tonight on this appeal. Just a brief overview. So we'll just talk about what the appeal hearing is. AGAIN, AS CHAIR BERMAN NOTED, THIS IS NOT A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. LOOK AT THE PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION, BACKGROUND, SPEAK TO THE APPEAL POINTS, AND THEN... BOY, THIS SLIDE GOT REALLY MESSED UP. I'M SO SORRY. TALK ABOUT THE APPEAL HEARING, THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND THE APPEAL POINTS, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR APPROVAL. So again, it's not a hearing on the proposed project, but an appeal on the determinations that the following apply. Ordinance number 391CS, requiring a vote of the electorate to develop housing on the project site, and two, the 2025 local coastal land use plan. So this is the proposed project location. It's the site also known as the Rockaway Quarry. Just a brief overview of where the application is in the process. On May 7th of 2025, the applicant submitted a preliminary housing application under Senate Bill 330. On October 6th, they made their submission of their formal SB 330 application for the Housing Development Project, which was deemed complete on April 7th of 2026, which started their 60-day consistency review. Staff provided an initial inconsistency determination letter raising several issues and then delivered the final inconsistency determination letter within that 60-day time frame on June 5th. The applicant has appealed the final determinations that were in that final inconsistency letter, and that's where we are today at the Appeal Planning Commission. So the appeal is really focused on those two determinations. Whether the project is subject to Ordinance 391, CS, that's the city's voter-adopted initiative that requires the vote of the electorate to develop housing on the project site, as well as the 2025 local coastal plan, which was recently certified by the Coastal Commission on May 8th. And with that, I'll turn it over to Assistant City Attorney Murphy.

Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. I will go through a summary of the appeal points. The appeal itself is in your staff report and raises a number of issues regarding the city's two determinations. First, to start with the determination regarding the voter initiative. There is a quote on the slide from the ordinance that was adopted in 1983. And the key point is that the voter initiative notes that residential development permitted under the C3 designation, which this site is, shall require a vote of the people. And based on that ordinance, it was the city's determination in the final inconsistency letter that that ordinance applies irrespective of the invocation of the builder's remedy And therefore, development of housing on the site would require a vote of the people. The appeal letter noted a number of arguments in favor of their appeal. They're summarized in the staff report in four main categories, which are also noted here. First, the appeal noted that there was or alleged that there was a violation of the Permit Streamlining Act. And the argument was unclear as to how it relates exactly to the voter initiative. No permit streamlining act violation occurred the city process the application timely and appropriately and met all deadlines as noted during director up to graves presentation In addition as to the voter initiative itself that Generally state law does not allow development in contravention of existing voter adopted land use requirements And again, this voter requirement was adopted in 1983 and has been in effect since that time. A second appeal point that was noted in the appeal is that the city is prohibited from requiring a general plan amendment or rezoning and that applications can only be denied with specific findings per the Housing Accountability Act. And as noted in more detail in the staff report, the staff's processing, efforts and determinations do comply with the HAA, the Housing Accountability Act. And it should also be noted that contrary to the point made in the appeal, that the application was deemed complete for processing without requiring an application for a general plan amendment or a rezoning. It was only in the inconsistency determination that the city did note that the voter initiative would apply. And the Housing Accountability Act does not prohibit the applicability of voter-approved initiatives. In addition, as to the allegations that applications can only be denied with specific findings, there's no project denial has been recommended or is determined, so any claim of denial is premature at this point. With respect to the next appeal point noted as Appeal Point 1C in the staff report, is that the housing projects are, the housing project is not subject to initiative as state law preempts local ordinances where the initiative violates the HAA. In this case, the staff's position is that there's nothing in the law that prohibits the city from enforcing its valid voter initiative. Again, it's been in place since 1983. And there were some cases cited in the appellant's argument, but those cases addressed challenges to initiatives after their adoption. And in this case, again, the voter initiative has been in place for decades and was not challenged at that time. Again, the state law does not allow development in contravention of the voter initiatives, and it's the city staff's position that the voter initiative remains in effect. Another argument was that... Having the project be subject to a vote is a backdoor to requiring a rezoning that's otherwise prohibited under the builder's remedy. And again, as previously noted, the city is not in violation of the Housing Accountability Act in determining the initiative applicable. The city has complied with the HAA by providing an inconsistency notice and setting forth the city's position, and the Housing Accountability Act does not revoke the will of the electorate. And that concludes my discussion of appeal point two, excuse me, one. And then to move on to the second point of the appeal, the city determined that the project would be subject to the 2025 LCLUP. And because the preliminary application that was submitted, although it does vest certain city regulations, it doesn't vest the project to provisions of the California Coastal Act or local coastal land use plan. in effect at the time of the preliminary application. Again, the appeal itself raised a number of arguments to support its position. First, noting that the preliminary application vested the project on May 7th and that the LC-LUP was not certified until May 8th. And therefore, project consistency must be measured against the standards before the 2025 LCLUP was certified. And as noted earlier, the city's position is that the CSAS position is that the preliminary application does not vest the California Coastal Act and that the HAA preserves the requirements of the California Coastal Act. And the Housing Crisis Act, which is cited in more detail in the staff report, does not include the California Coastal Act or the LCLUP in the list of regulations that are vested by a preliminary application. In addition, case law supports the city's staff's position that housing-related laws, including the HAA, do not relieve compliance with the Coastal Act. In addition, there was just a recent Court of Appeal decision that held that LCLUP standards require compliance ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIED WITH EVEN FOR A BUILDER'S REMEDY PROJECT. AND THAT'S A NEW COMMUNE VERSUS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. AND THAT SUPERIOR COURT DECISION OR LOWER COURT DECISION IS CITED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUT NOW THERE IS A COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TO THAT EFFECT AS WELL, WHICH ACTUALLY CAME DOWN AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WENT OUT. And in their argument, the appellants provided no case law or legal authority to count the city's position on this point. In addition, there is a letter in the staff report from the California Coastal Commission that agrees with the city staff's position that the 2025 LCLUP is applicable. And the other appeal point that was raised in the appeal as to the local coastal land use plan applicability is that the HAA must be interpreted to afford the fullest weight possible to housing, and that the Coastal Act and housing laws must be harmonized. And it is the city staff's position that the position that was taken in the letter does that, and it does harmonize the Coastal Act and the housing laws. The HAA includes express clauses preserving the Coastal Act in full, and the certified 2025 LCLUP implements and does implement the Coastal Act. And in addition, the application of the 2025 LCLUP does not limit the applicability of state laws and ensures compliance with the Coastal Act, therefore harmonizing the Coastal Act and housing laws.

Thank you, Assistant City Attorney Murphy. So based on the analysis provided, staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that the Planning Commission uphold the determinations of the Community Development Director that Ordinance 391 CS and the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan apply to the proposed project. And then just wanted to touch briefly on CEQA. The Planning Commission's action on the appeal is not subject to CEQA. This action is not the appeal of the consistency analysis doesn't constitute an approval of a project as defined under CEQA. But environmental review would be required for the proposed project itself. And then we've provided a recommended motion. which I can pull back up when it's time. And that concludes our presentation, and staff is happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. So now I'll ask if the commission has any clarifying questions.

All right.

Okay. So then... Now I'll open the public hearing, and I'll allow the appellant an opportunity to speak. And remind me, are they given 10 minutes? That's correct. 10 minutes.

Good evening. ACTING CHAIR BERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I'M ALICIA GUERRA, LAND USE ATTORNEY FOR THE PRESERVE AT PACIFICA, AND I FILED THE APPEAL THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. AS THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE, LEGAL MATTER, AS YOU NOTED, THERE ARE NO COMMENTS OR CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED. Actually, we submitted it at the end of 2024 and then reached a complete application determination in May 2025. This evening, I am here to answer any of your questions and also explain why we filed this appeal. And some of you probably recollect from when we were before you with the revised reclamation plan that was denied by the council. As you know, this site requires reclamation, and attempts at reclamation, attempts at development have occurred for 40 years, and we're still here, and I'm here this evening filing appeals just so we can actually get a decision for a project to be able to move forward at some point here. And the reason that we filed our appeal at this point, once we filed a formal development project application under the builder's remedy provisions of the HAA is for two reasons. One is through the determination that the application was deemed complete and when the city conducted its consistency review, it determined that we would be, this project would be subject to the initiative and you heard staff give you a presentation of that. Well, if an initiative is required for residential development that is allowed as a matter of law under the builder's remedy provisions here, which means that we don't need any legislative authorizations in order to be able to move forward with housing, We move forward. We submitted a formal development project application as a permit decision, which is what the law contemplates, to then turn around, go through a process, and say, well, no, you still have to go back as if you require changing the law, changing the rules, and it's subject to a voter initiative. We're gonna be, we are stopped yet again as this project, as development of the site has been stopped for 40 years. So we filed our application, we filed our appeal now because there is no path forward with an initiative. And under the law, under builder's remedy cases, both trial court and there's also an appellate court proceeding decision that was reached last year. that basically builder's remedy projects are not subject to initiative even if the initiative was imposed prior to the passage of the Housing Crisis Act in 2019. So what that means is the act of placing an initiative on the ballot can't be used to stop a housing project that's already allowed as a matter of builder's remedy. And that's why we're here before you this evening on that first appeal, which is based on our review of the inconsistency letter, we're hearing that, well, yeah, you can keep going, but we're not going to let you keep going because you are subject to an initiative that can deny residential and has denied residential. And in fact, recently in 2016, denied residential development on the site. So that's why we're here this evening with respect to that first issue. With respect to the second issue concerning the local coastal plan and why we raised this question and filed our appeal on the 2025 LCLUP is because this project, as you know, is very complicated. When we first started this in the 1980s, reclamation was proceeding with some level of development. Well, that didn't go anywhere, and it wasn't until 1996 when the city council approved the 1996 reclamation plan. That was just reclamation, no development. So our client, Preserve at Pacifica, tried to process an initiative for residential development at that point, consistent with what your general plan and what that ordinance contemplated. The project was denied. But the 1996 reclamation plan was left in place. And when the council decided to deny the 2024 revised reclamation plan that we submitted, we appealed to the state related to the reclamation. And the state then said, no, we're not actually going to take your appeal up. You have a 1996 reclamation plan. In effect, go reclaim the site. So we're right back where we've been for 40 years trying to reclaim the site and develop the site. So as part of that, we packaged up our builder's remedy application in conjunction with the state telling us go do reclamation and proceed with the last approval needed to do that. That's the coastal development permit. However, the coastal development permit required for reclamation and, in our estimation, for the builder's remedy project was based on the local coastal land use plan in effect in 1980. When your general plan contemplated some level of development, it included visitor-serving, commercial, conservation, open space, and actually mentioned residential development in the special area of your development. General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. So here we are again. All our client is really trying to do is develop reclamation with residential. All as one project. Two CDPs because CDPs are needed. We could do it as one CDP, but we've processed it or applied for it as two CDPs. TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME PROJECT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A WHILE ONLY WITH CONSIDERABLY MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE BUILDER'S REMEDY PROVISIONS. AND THE REASON THAT THE STATE LAW SAYS YOU CAN DO THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE, The city had not yet certified its housing element, gotten it certified by HCD. And coincidentally, and I heard some people kind of joking in the back there, yes, we did file our preliminary application and have it being deemed complete before the local coastal plan got certified by the Coastal Commission. And in our appeal, we never said we're not complying with the Coastal Act. That's craziness because we're subject to state law. However, what we've said is, based on builder's remedy, because this is one residential project with reclamation, which is what the council asked us to do in 2024 and the commission asked us to do, We're processing it as one project. But if we take the approach of you have one set of rules for this action, reclamation, and a different set of rules for builder's remedy, and by the way, we can kind of change the rules on you, whatever they are, and at the end, we'll get back to you as to whether anybody really wants residential, but maybe you're doing reclamation. You guys are going to have a big mess on your hands, and there's not going to be an ability to develop the project. So today we filed our appeal in order to be able to get clear direction that, yes, the project can proceed under builder's remedy. As I said, there is state law that says initiatives are, that builder's remedy projects are not subject to initiatives. And even the trial court decisions were not related to specific projects. They were related to land use decisions, to general plan designations. Similar to what we have here. And on the Coastal Act part of this, all we're saying is apply the same rules related to the local coastal plan policies that apply. Well, because the state, and I'm kind of going back here to reclamation, the state said proceed with your 1996 reclamation plan. That 1996 reclamation plan was based on your 1980 local coastal land use plan. And since it's all being part of, processed part of the builder's remedy project, it's one big project. And all we're saying is state law contemplates that the same rules apply to the same project. And so the rules that were vested under the reclamation plan approval based on the 1980 general plan and local coastal plan are the rules that apply now to the residential. Thank you very much. And if you have any questions, I'm available to answer them. And I'd like to reserve three minutes, if I still have three minutes, to respond to rebuttal.

Yes, I believe you are entitled to three minutes of rebuttal. Thank you. And we may call you back if we have questions. I'm inclined to open public comment if everyone agrees. Is that acceptable? Okay.

So before I open public comment, I'm going to read another note.

So in order to ensure a fair process, not intimidate anyone from speaking, and keep the meeting and comments moving forward smoothly, we ask that there be no applause, booing, or commenting from the audience. whether in favor or against. You may express your opinion when you are called upon to come to the podium and address the commission. If there are disruptions, I will issue a reminder to the audience, and if disruptions continue, I will recess the meeting. Okay, so I have four speaker cards for folks in person. Just a reminder if you want to speak, there's yellow cards in the back. You could fill them out and bring them to staff. And it looks like we may have one or two more coming in. And then I also want to understand how many folks are online who want to comment. And so for members of Public participating online if you wish to speak, please raise your hand in the next minute So raise your hand on zoom. Thank you, or if you're calling in star 9 I'll cut I'll cut off the number of speakers at that time So folks online raise your hand now if you'd like the opportunity to speak and then once we call the minute as up. Then we're going to cut off and we'll like to note the last speaker, please. Give a couple more seconds. All right. How many hands do we have raised?

There's one raised hand right now.

OK. All right, and a couple more cards coming in.

Thank you.

OK, can you please note the folks online who would like to speak? Because those will be our online speakers for the evening. All right, and I have eight cards up here. So we're gonna maintain the typical three minutes for public speaking for each public comment. And we will start with folks in the room. All right, so as a reminder, Please refrain from booing, applauding, anything that can be disruptive, please. All right, so we have Lila Rinaru Kata and Kimberly Finale are the first three. And please state your name for the record when you come up to the podium.

Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Lila Ranero. I'm a concerned citizen and longtime Pacifica resident. I support City Staff's recommendation on the quarry project and respectfully urge you to deny the appeal and uphold the determination that the project is subject to Ordinance 391 CS and the 2025 Local Coastal Land Use Plan. These policies exist to protect our community and ensure that projects are reviewed under consistent environmental and planning standards. I respectfully ask that you accept the staff report and approve staff's recommendation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. So Kata is next. Kimberly Finale will be after. And then Cliff Lawrence will be after that.

Greetings, all. My name is Kata Gomes, Ramaytush descendant from the village of Tmiktok along Cholera Creek, which is exactly where this project is proposed. I hope that this appeal does not get approved. Mr. Hewlett has proven his total disregard for the will of the community. I believe this proposal is very vindictive in a way of Again, disregarding the wishes of this community. Community has been here in this location for more than 5,000 years. My ancestors have been the caretakers of this land. I've had personal phone conversations with Mr. Hewlett, and we obviously have a very different relationship with this land. He originally offered me a portion of this project to have an indigenous cultural center in the midst of all this high density housing. And I refused. I cannot support his proposal for destroying this wetland, destroying this habitat for the creatures that remain here, who have existed here for time and eternity. I really appreciate your work in protecting this community from developers who are motivated by greed. Thank you so much for your service. I really appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you. Kimberly is next, followed by Cliff, and then Peter Logue.

Hello, Commissioners. My name is Kimberly Finale, Pacifica resident and daughter of former Planning Commissioner William Leo Leon. As I was writing my own comments for this meeting, I received a copy of the emailed comments that my dad had submitted to you for this agenda item. I quickly scrapped my own notes and asked my dad if I could read his comments into the record. I've edited his comments for length. Please refer to his email for more detailed facts. We want to express our agreement with and support of staff's recommendation of denial of the applicant's appeal. We believe the applicant is attempting to circumvent Pacifica's voters' right to vote on the applicant's proposed plan for residential housing in the quarry. Equally concerning is the applicant's apparent disregard for the requirements of the Hillside Preservation Ordinance or HPD. It is essential that slope calculations be submitted to determine the allowable coverage per the calculation mandated in HPD. Also essential is the voter-mandated provisions contained within HPD. The Hillside Preservation District Ordinance is a foundational piece of zoning law enacted by the City of Pacifica in 1972 to restrict and regulate development on the city's vulnerable hillsides and ridgelines. According to Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code, the HPD is designed to achieve four primary goals, resource preservation, public safety, economic soundness, and innovative design. There are key regulations and constraints, one of them being under Pacifica's growth management ordinance. Any attempt to rezone land out of hillside preservation district or agricultural designations requires a mandatory citywide public vote. This prevents city officials from easily bypassing HPD protections for major developments without direct voter approval. The Hillside Preservation District Ordinance directly restricts development of the 86-acre Rockaway Quarry property because the entire site is designated as a service commercial C3 zone with an explicit HPD overlay zone. Any proposed project must navigate several HPD restrictions, including the mandatory public vote requirement. Under Pacifica's growth management ordinance, any attempt to change or bypass the HPD or agricultural zoning designations on a property requires a mandatory citywide public vote. Also, disturbed area and open space mandates. The HPD strictly limits how much terrain a developer can grade, clear, or build based on the slope of the hillsides. The HPD dictates that the vast majority of the steep slopes must remain untouched. The HPD should be fully applied to this proposed project application. Thank you.

Thank you. Cliff, followed by Peter, and then Cindy Abbott.

Thank you. I want to ask that you deny this appeal on these two points. I personally have felt since seeing the initial application that this was vindictive. And the point was to circumvent our vote, our right to vote. I think that was the intention of the applicant. So it's not a surprise that they're trying to, in this fashion, circumvent that vote. And I trust you'll do the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Peter, Cindy, and then followed by... Lonnie Cotty. Okay.

Okay. Peter Loeb, good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your service as volunteers, I point out. Thanks to the staff for that 100-page document that's the determination of inconsistency. I really appreciate the amount of work that went into that, and I also appreciate the staff report, which response to each of the arguments in the appeal. I wanted to be brief and just say I hope that the Commission will deny the appeal, but I also have to mention that I was on the City Council here in 1983 when we adopted, not we, the voters adopted that ordinance. That is a ordinance. I'm quite relieved to hear the city attorney's argument that more recent legislation in the HAA does not overturn a voter adopted ordinance that has been in place for decades. I've been in place for decades. dealing with this issue. Anyway, I really appreciate the amount of work that's gone into this, and I'm really just asking the commission to deny this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Cindy, then Lonnie, then Joanne Gold.

Good evening, Cindy Abbott. Good to see all of you this evening. I want to align myself with all the comments that have been shared this evening so far. I sent in my written public comment earlier today, so I won't go over all of that with my request to deny the appeal this evening. I did, though, want to speak and commend the staff for the work that they've been doing on this project. for such a long time. Just like we heard a moment ago, the initial inconsistency determination was detailed Might be a few more things that are inconsistent. I read that, that it's open for other things. It is a final letter, though, and it was really well done. And the same thing, I haven't read such clear staff report in a really long time. It was beautiful, addressing each one of the issues with very sound arguments and factual statements from case law. So I just really want to thank the staff for all of the work that's gone into this. And I look forward to you denying the appeal this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. Lonnie. And then followed by Joanne Gold. And sorry if it's hard to read.

I'm just going to say I'm not Lonnie, but my name is Lori Goldberg, and I don't know if maybe it looks funny. I don't know, so I'll just talk for Lonnie. First of all, I do appreciate all the work you guys have done, because I know it's probably a lot of work. The quarry is a very sacred place to me. I've walked through that quarry, and I love it. I just was in there recently, and I saw these little birds, and there's animals in there. And to just destroy it. And here we have, look at the pier. See, we have sea level rise. That's close to the ocean. And I remember when Hewley, and I don't remember what year it was, he wanted to put 2,500 square feet bungalows up on the hillsides in the quarry. First of all, 2,500 square feet is not a bungalow. Luckily, we got to vote on whatever his project was, and it was voted down. Then he comes with this retribution thing of trying to fill the quarry in with tons of soil. And now he's trying to sneak through again with this other plan. And so I really hope that you reject it. That is a very sacred thing. Open space area. And I would hate to see it being ruined. It makes me sad thinking about it. So I really hope you deny this appeal. And I hope that people can enjoy the quarry and the animals that live in there and the birds can enjoy it as open space. We need nature. And in fact, it really bothers me because I live in Ballamore. I see animals all the time, and now I hardly see any animals. And I'm like, what's happening? And even we don't have that many wells this summer. Like, what's going on with that? So I thank you for what you've done, and I really want to see this denied. And here, Hewley wants to make money off of building who knows what and what is affordable. We don't even know what that is. And we have to put up with the traffic. We have to put up with our infrastructure. And where are we going to get all this water for all these people? And where are all these animals going to go? What's going to happen to the birds and the animals in the quarry? So anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Joanne? And then next we'll move on to the online comments.

Hi, Joanne Gold. I'm a longtime Pacifica resident, and I just wanted to add my voice to all the other speakers who've already come before me to say that I support the staff's recommendation to deny this appeal, and I urge the Commission to also accept their report. their recommendations. There's nothing about this project that is good for Pacifica or supports our most prized asset, which is our environment, and that is our economy. So I just want to thank you for your great work and say keep it up.

Thank you. We still have one person online. Casa Casillas, you can unmute yourself now.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes. Hi, this is Sam Casillas, resident of Pedro Point. First, I would like to thank the staff for a strong and thorough analysis of the requirements needed for this project. Staff is to be commended for this denial. If you heard what the appellate's attorney said is that Pacificans have no right to determine the future of our own city. Also, they basically denied the right of the true indigenous landowners there. And I have to commend Kata for always sticking by her guns and always making sure she's not enticed by these false hopes that these developers come in and give her. Kata, thank you very much. She also conveniently left out that this developer wanted to use our beautiful coastline here in the quarry as a toxic soil dump. which was also rightfully denied. Please continue to do what is right for Pacifica and Pacificans. I applaud the work you are doing for the people of Pacifica. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. And now I will close the public comment period for this agenda item and bring it back. Oh, I guess now would be the time for the appellant's rebuttal. And you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chair Berman, members of the Planning Commission. I would just want to make two comments. First off, people think that this is all about making money.

Coastal Crest, excuse me, please, no comments out of turn. Thank you.

Actually, my client is proposing 100% affordable units. And think about it. Where do you see affordable housing with a view of the ocean? So this is about trying to provide housing in an area where it's much needed. And we have a housing crisis for a reason, because it's not being allowed to be developed, which is, again, why This application and what's before you this evening really presents an issue and it's a legal issue as to two competing or three competing state laws. This application is framed by the builder's remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act and the reason we're here is this project's 100% affordable. Secondly, we're not talking about what this project looks like. That's for another day. But at this point, we're just asking for the ability to move forward with the project based on what state law contemplates, which is that a residential project, 100% affordable housing project, is not subject to a voter. initiative and secondly that the rules that apply under the Coastal Act are those that were in effect when this application was deemed complete because those were the local policies ordinances and requirements that were in effect with the city's general plan and and local coastal plan at the time the application was deemed complete. Again, we're not saying we're not trying to comply with state law. We're actually proposing to move forward with state law. So again, I respectfully request your consideration to grant our appeal and allow us to move forward consistent with the state builder's remedy provisions. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I'll bring it back to the commission. And we may ask some questions of you.

I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN THAT WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. WHAT APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE?

I THINK STAFF CAN CLARIFY THAT, IF I MAY.

So we filed one formal development project application for a residential project with 1,225 residential units, 100% affordable units, with reclamation implementing the 1996 reclamation plan. That formal development project application included two CDPs, one CDP to do the reclamation, which has to proceed prior to the second CDP for the residential project. So when I say our application was deemed complete, it was as to both the reclamation component and the residential component all packaged up as one builder's remedy project for 1,225 apartment units. They were all to implement the existing general plan and zoning under the builder's remedy provisions.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for the appellant directly, or shall we allow her to sit and then we can ask questions of staff and delivery? You can go ahead and sit. We'll call you back if we have more questions.

If I can formulate this in the form of a question. I'M GOING TO GO BACK ON ANCIENT HISTORY WHEN I WAS ABOUT 13 IN 1996. THAT WAS A PLAN THAT I RECALL WAS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALONG WITH, AS WAS REFERENCED, THE RECLAMATION, AND THAT WAS REQUIRED TO GO TO A PUBLIC VOTE. IT DIDN'T PASS THE PUBLIC VOTE. WOULDN'T THIS ESSENTIALLY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE SAME ITEMS TO GO ALONG? A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AN ACTUAL grade everything that's in the inconsistency plan to have an actual development with renderings, et cetera, et cetera, before, and it would still be required to go to a public vote. I cannot imagine that it wouldn't. Everything that I read in the excellent staff report has been noted by the public was hit all the notes. And I think it was fairly clear to me that that absolutely applies. So I'm just curious if that process, this process, would be the exact same process and have essentially a development plan finalized, all the inconsistencies taken care of, to go to a public vote. In other words, packaged to be presented, if you will.

At this point, we're reviewing, as has been noted, the inconsistencies and there's was a final inconsistency letter sent that noted numerous inconsistencies with the local coastal land use plan, as well as other aspects of the project. And as part of that, the city made, the community development director made a determination that the project was subject to a vote of the people, and that that was a requirement to inform the applicant of that moving forward. In terms of how the application itself would move forward. Because of this inherent inconsistency, that is one of the reasons why it's subject to appeal. And as far as the exact process to move forward, that would be something for the applicant to determine. But at this point, as noted, there are a number of foundational inconsistencies.

So I was going to ask something similar, really what I would call the order of proceeding. And the applicant referred to that there is no path forward, but there's no path forward without a vote of the people. I mean, they still proceed to Chris's question, but it's just that there must be a vote of the people. It's my understanding from, I will say it too, the excellent staff report, I read the determination letter. I read the appeal. And when the staff report came out, all my questions were answered. It was really well done. And I really appreciate you drilling it down and being so concise and really sticking to the point of the matter. So thank you for that.

And just to confirm, was your question to confirm that there was a path forward. Yes, assuming that the inconsistencies were addressed, for example, the vote of the people, the LCLUP inconsistencies, as noted in the letter, there would be a path forward.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Sanchez, do you?

All right, any deliberation? Well, I'll just say I'll concur with a lot of folks that have said the staff report was very digestible. It was, and I really appreciate that. just personally being a technical person, so getting into the legality, I appreciated a concise report and staff's availability for, you know, my questions in advance. But I also appreciate the applicant's time in working with the city. I think everyone has gone through the due process necessary for development. And so I appreciate both sides of this appeal. And I personally do agree with staff's recommendation. It does make sense to me on the two items that were inconsistencies. And it does comfort me to see that there is a path forward. So that's my opinion. Are there any other deliberations? Or we could have a motion.

I just wanted to comment on the legal items that were in the staff report. I didn't think I was ever going to be in law school, but that was quite a bit. But it was very understandable. There was many of those things cited that went back through and go back through SB 330. all kinds of things that were very understandable, and it made sense in the staff report to go back through and read the actual statutes and the case law to come to determination.

If anyone's ready for a motion.

I'll do it.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED COASTAL CRUSH PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO, NUMBER ONE, ORDINANCE 391-CS, AND TWO, THE 2025 LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN.

IS THERE A SECOND?

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

Motion made by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Redfield, and that motion passes 5-0 with two commissioners absent.

All right, thank you. Now we're on to communications. Commission communications, are there any?

Commissioner Davis. Just, I did want to comment that I did do a site walk on Lot 7. FOR OUR UPCOMING CONTINUED TO ADATE CERTAIN HARMONY ONE AND HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH TAKE COAN ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU. AND IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO MENTION THAT ONCE WE DO I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL TO NOTE IT NOW BUT THEN IN ADDITION TO WHEN WE MEET AGAIN.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK CITY MANAGER For I think we have a now a website dedicated part of the website on the website for the pier updates on the pier So if anybody's interested in where we're at financially physically emotionally So it's on the city website if you're interested to keep up on the ongoings with the pier.

Thank you Thank You Commissioner Redfield And actually, I just thought of a question. So during our last meeting, we talked about how meeting minutes will be noted upon. I guess we're not going to have a note taker anymore. We're going to use a system. Is that correct?

So the city is in the process of replacing our agenda management, which is all kinds of embarrassing things like add phantom signature lines for people who no longer work here to the staff report. So we're in the process of doing that. And one of the primary features is going to be video integration. And so once that system is up and running, the city will no longer be doing the more like verbatim minutes and will be moving more to an action minutes style. But it's not going to be until that is in place. Okay.

When that is in place, the way that we conduct the meeting, so when I first joined commission eight years ago, We did use the call buttons, and the chair did announce who was going to speak next. Well, we have to revert, and it's fine if it's the case, but should we plan to revert back to that method of conducting the meeting so then once the software creates the action notes, I guess it's clear which commissioner is speaking?

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL BE CREATING THE ACTION MINUTES, BUT I WILL LOOK INTO AND FOLLOW UP ON WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY PROCEDURAL CHANGES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WILL BE STAFF TAKING THE ACTION MINUTES, BUT THAT'S A REALLY GREAT QUESTION. WE SHOULD ALL BE PREPARED FOR IT IF THERE ARE CHANGES. SO I'LL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS? All right, staff communications. Thank you, Chair Berman. I did want to share that our short-term rental ordinance is going to the California Coastal Commission hearing on August 12, which is next Wednesday. The meeting will be held in Scotts Valley, where also there's the ability to participate online. The Coastal Commission staff at this point has recommended some pretty significant modifications, so staff is working on a response to those. Thank you for the update. Yes. I was just going to say I'm going to pass it on to City Manager Charpentier.

Good evening, Sean Charpentier, City Manager. Thank you, Chair. I did want to let you and members of the public know that there is a special city council meeting this Wednesday at 6 p.m., and the item on the agenda is consideration of a one-cent sales tax measure for the November ballot.

Thank you. Any questions on that? All right. Thank you for the update.

I had a question. Is there anything specific that the sales tax would fund?

It's for general government purposes, so it would be everything from fire to potholes. Fire suppression services. Fire department. Excuse me.

Potholes are important. I don't know if we're still on the list of San Mateo County's worst streets. Are we? We are.

Okay. No, I haven't. Just to clarify, so will it be similar to the SALES TAX INITIATIVE THAT WENT THROUGH WITH MEASURE Y WHERE IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE GENERAL FUND. THERE'S NO SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR IT.

THAT IS CORRECT. AND I DO WANT TO KIND OF LIMIT MY COMMENTS SINCE THERE IS AN OPEN STAFF REPORT AND THIS WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA. IT WAS MORE FOR GENERAL AWARENESS.

THANK YOU. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE PUBLISHED STAFF REPORT. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT ALL FOR STAFF COMMUNICATIONS? That is everything for staff communications. Thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion. We adjourn the meeting. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Motion made by Commissioner Redfield, second by Commissioner Fisher, and that motion passes 5-0 to absent.

Thank you. We are adjourned. Thanks.