Preliminary plans have been filed for Coastal Crest Residences, a potential residential redevelopment of the Pacifica Quarry Site by Rockaway Beach. The builder’s remedy-assisted application looks to create a new residential neighborhood of over a thousand affordable units pushed back from the San Mateo County coastline. The project is a joint venture led by Paul Heule’s Michigan-based company, Eenhoorn.
The current application looks to designate all 1,021 units as affordable housing, though 80% of all units will be deed-restricted as affordable to moderate-income households, and 20% of units will be affordable to low-income households.
Coastal Crest Residences, site map by BAR Architects & Interiors
The initial plan set looks to add 21 buildings. Full build-out will create just of a million square feet of floor area, excluding parking, with 988,000 square feet for housing and 25,000 square feet for retail. Garages built across the site will provide capacity for 1,286 cars, of which 90 will be for commercial visitors.
BAR Architects & Interiors is listed as the project architect. While architectural details have not been published, the site map shows some information about the urban planning. The plans show three distinct sizes, the largest of which is two massive apartment buildings elevated on Blocks 1A and 1B. The smallest form is the 10 structures occupying Block 3, which appear more similar to townhouse-style complexes. The highest point for construction will be added in Block 5, with two structures looking to replace the hilltop Labyrinth near Mori Point.
Rockaway Quarry circa 1938, photograph by Dorothea Lange
The 86-acre site is located just off Highway 1, between the small Rockaway Beach enclave and the Pacifica neighborhood next to Sharp Park Golf Course. Future residents would be a 35-minute bus ride away from the Daly City BART Station.
Paul Heule is responsible for the application filing through Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC. The estimated timeline for approval and construction has yet to be established. The developer has invoked the Builder’s Remedy to streamline the approval process, a pathway made possible by the state law as a consequence of not having a state-compliant housing element.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Oh, wow. I always thought that was a park or nature preserve.
No, let’s NOT do this. This is an awful place to sprawl. FFS, I thought that this was a park anyway. I know that your boy Scotty is trying to destroy the Coastal Commission, but last I checked it still exists, and I am sure that they will have something to say about this.
For the record, every project proposed for this site has failed for the last thirty years. This site needs to be added to the GGNRA and the threat removed for good.
This is going to cause an uproar in town. While I appreciate increasing our housing supply, this area is effecively a public park and nature preserve. Pacifica should consider upzoning to densify their commerical corridors instead of sprawl.
Also, building on that cliff seems like a dangerous, ill informed idea. The state is currently pushing managed retreat from the ocean.
Wow, I never thought I’d say this on this site — I don’t support this development. I think the state of California should buy this land and set it aside for preservation.
Agreed with the other commenters. Related, I was looking at a satellite map of SF and thinking a similar thing about Twin Peaks. Imagine if the entire Twin Peaks area had been left alone as a huge central wilderness. It would be incredible. Instead there is a bunch of low density track housing mixed in called “Forest Knolls”. The city of SF should never have allowed that, and instead just been 5% denser in the surrounding area.
I’m referring to the octagon-shaped area surrounded by Market, Portola Dr, Woodside Ave, Laguna Honda Blvd, 7th Ave, Parnassus and Stanyan. Could have been an incredible urban wilderness with views for hiking and mountain biking.
I agree. That would have been amazing. It’s still fun to hike/walk around that area.
Traffic is already impossible on Cabrillo on a busy beach day. NO to Michigan developers trying to make a quick buck on California coastal property.
Read the chapter about Pacifica in the book “California against the Coast” to really understand one the biggest reasons for not supporting this development (in addition to the impact of traffic on HWY 1).
Affordable housing on the beach, in an area that should be set aside for preservation.
Affordable housing on the beach will be allowed, but if it were market rate/for those who can afford it, it would be blocked.
I cannot believe that they want to add to the traffic problems on highway 1 this is not a good project
OH HELL NO!
No the coast side needs the open space
Parks, beaches, hiking trails, and natural preserves benefit all in the Bay Area. This isn’t the answer to the housing crisis.
That is private property and someone has been tolerant enough for decades to allow public access for hiking, biking, gardening, and recreation while paying property taxes on this huge parcel. Aside from the decades of property taxes paid, think of the liability insurance cost on top.
This is a safety issue. They want us to have an evacuation plan for a burning home, what about if the hills (god forbid) catch fire. People will be trapped. Students will be trapped. Senior Centers will be trapped. More people is a problem. Not to mention all the vacant commercial space that is becoming a hazzard due to being unoccupied.
Having California Purchase the land and set it aside as permanent recreational land seems to be the best idea for eliminating projects like the current proposed one.
Not a chance!!! The coast highway cannot handle the amount of traffic that we face now. Adding over a thousand units times 2 cars per household is a joke at the busiest intersection in Pacifica. Emergency vehicles can’t even get thru traffic current. Not to mention I seriously doubt the sewer system in town is inadequate enough to handle this many additional housing units.
Look at all the blowhard libs that support extreme lib policies suddenly sound like MAGA conservatives the minutes the policies they support are implemented in their neighborhoods. Typical California logic. That’s why this state is a mess.
dense housing is great next to public transportation networks. There is none here. And the only road in and out is Highway one which is already heavily trafficked and at times at a standstill.
They need to pump the brakes on this project, UNLESS they can provide better infrastructure. The project sits between two traffic signals Fassler & Vallemar and K-rail would prevent egress from the development unless departing southbound. Or, just add more traffic lights (mid-block) so that EVERYONE can suffer more delays! Senator Scott Weiner has a wet dream to help developers put in high-density housing everywhere, but he forgot to FUND infrastructure. Already Pacifica has sewage overflow issues. 1,000+ units will not help with traffic or sanitary sewer overflows!
Too bad that’s Timiktak, one of the oldest Native American villages in California.
Zero chance the State of California will allow anyone to build there.
GGNRA states Indians were en slaved there to mine limestone and there are burial grounds on site.
The actual title of the book is “California against the Sea”. That should answer why no build and no go.
The traffic problems will be horrendous if we don’t build a new Ocean Shore Railway first. I saw a list of places to build affordable housing, many of which wouldn’t involve making an already difficult traffic problem worse or impossible. I think the housing requirement is being used to bludgeon Pacificans into submission. 121 residences in the quarry will have all of the same problems that got all of the previous bad ideas for the quarry voted down. There are several other places (some, actually closer to MY actual backyard) that have better capacity for the inevitable traffic. Wherever we allow the building to take place, we are going to need better public transportation which in the onset won’t have the ridership to bring the immediate profits that our sick economy requires. Also, what will be the ratio of luxury condominiums to affordable housing? And what does affordable mean? Are we basing it on a median income that includes all the local billionaires in the calculation of ‘median’. Yes, In My Back Yard, but let’s not be stupid. We don’t have to trash the Sanchez Art Center and we don’t need to make the center of town’s one main corridor into a perpetual bottleneck just to make some developer rich.