CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of 1) Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP-179-22, Quarry Use Permit UP71-16, Variance PV-531-22, and Tree Permit TP-1-22 (File No. 2016-001); and 2) Waive the First Reading and Introduce of Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the PDX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-
4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018- 150-150)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Adopt a Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP‐179‐22, Quarry Use Permit UP‐71‐16, Variance PV‐531‐22, and Tree Permit TP‐1‐22 (File No. 2016‐001); and
2. Waive the First Reading and Introduce Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the P-DX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
STAFF CONTACT:
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director, Community Development Department (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Acting Deputy Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
A. INTRODUCTION
The Rockaway Quarry is composed of two parcels: the 47.13-acre Quarry Parcel to the west and the 39.09-acre Eastern Parcel located adjacent to and directly west of SR 1 and south/east of Calera Creek. The Calera Creek channel runs in a general north-south direction on a separate 17.2-acre parcel between the Quarry and the Eastern Parcels.
The Rockaway Quarry has a long history, starting in the mid-1700s, of limestone quarrying.
Operations ceased in 1987, and the site was partially filled with earth from the Vallemar Road cut. By 1993, the Eastern Parcel, used for mining support, was filled and cleared of quarryrelated structures. In 1996, the City of Pacifica bought 12 acres of the quarry’s northern edge to build the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. They relocated Calera Creek to a new 17.2-acre parcel and graded the Eastern Parcel, filling the old creek and restoring over seven acres of wetlands.
Reclamation activity, as currently proposed, would consist of minor site improvements such as grading for the access road and wetlands mitigation that are located on the Eastern Parcel. This Parcel would be reclaimed to include a complex of four tiered seasonal wetlands totaling 1.55 acres and a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-approved, clay-lined 0.20-acre pond. These features would mitigate for the loss of aquatic habitat due to the impacts from grading and filling on a man-made wetland (the quarry pond), located on the Quarry Parcel. In total, 1.75 acres of seasonal wetlands will be created.
B. BACKGROUND
The following section provides the relevant background information of the project that is being appealed.
SITE DESIGNATIONS:
General Plan: Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC) and Conservation (C) Current Zoning: C-3X/HPD/CZ (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) Proposed Zoning: P-DX/HPD/CZ (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) with Approved Development Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This item consists of two appeals of the Planning Commission’s effective denial of an application for the reclamation of the Rockaway Quarry. The Council hears appeals de novo, namely as if hearing for the first time. Therefore, the City Council is also being asked to consider the overall project approvals for the proposed reclamation plan, as described below.
The current application is for a Revised Quarry Reclamation Plan, October 2023, which proposes to reclaim the former quarry by importing approximately 874,000 cubic yards of soil to restore the excavated quarry face and other areas to a pre-mining condition, establishing 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond, and constructing new unpaved recreational trails and drainage improvements throughout the reclaimed site. The applicant has proposed a Reduced Fill Alternative, as analyzed in the EIR, and described in more detail below.
The proposed reclamation activities would not include any changes in use or building construction on the project site. The site would be rezoned to the P-DX (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) zoning district from the existing C-3X (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) zoning district as required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay zoning district. The reclamation activities would also involve protected tree removal to allow reclamation grading activities to Pacifica City Council 3
September 23, 2024
occur. The proposed reclamation activities would require a variance to exceed the coverage limitation for grading within the HPD overlay zoning district. The project site is located within the Coastal Zone – however, the site is not within the City of Pacifica’s Certified Local Coastal Program and an application for a Coastal Development Permit is being separately considered by the California Coastal Commission.
Pursuant to the input from the Planning Commission and public comment at the March 18, 20241 2, Planning Commission Meeting and the May 20, 20243 4, Study Session, the Applicant has proposed an alternative to further reduce the amount of imported fill to approximately 583,000 CY, using the Reduced Fill Alternative described and analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR, Chapter 6) for the project (“Reduced Fill Alternative”) (Attachment C).
The Reduced Fill Alternative was presented to the Planning Commission on August 19, 20245 6, with further modifications proposed by City staff to provide for a phased grading of (1) 100,000 cubic yards for the first two years; (2) grading up to 200,000 over the first three years; and (3) up to a maximum of 583,000 cubic yards, which amount would be decreased based on the ultimate grading required for the Quarry site to develop in accordance with a Specific Plan prepared by the City, at applicant’s expense, or current General Plan land uses if a Specific Plan has not been prepared after four years. The Planning Commission effectively denied approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative.
As described below, the project remains generally unchanged from the Reduced Fill Alternative considered by the Planning Commission, although staff has modified and strengthened a number of the proposed conditions, as described below.
STATE AND CITY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RECLAMATION:
The Rockaway Quarry site is required to be reclaimed under both City and State statutory requirements. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”) contains numerous mining and reclamation obligations which are imposed on Quarry owners and operators (Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 2770 et seq.) The City’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (see Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-2.03, incorporates SMARA by reference.
The State has oversight over all mining and reclamation activities. For example, the State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Reclamation (“DMR”) has advisory authority over the review of reclamation plans. (PRC § 2772.1.)In this case, DMR reviewed the prior 970,000 cubic yard reclamation plan and determined that it was consistent with SMARA.
Further, unlike other City land use actions, the City Council’s action on the reclamation plan is not final. The State Mining and Geology Board (“SMGB”) has authority to hear appeals of the City’s action in the following circumstances:(1) failure to timely process a reclamation plan, namely if the City fails to act within 60 days between “successive steps”; or (2) the City fails to act according to due process or has relied on considerations not related to SMARA reclamation requirements in denying a reclamation plan.(14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) § 3650(a)(3)(b); PRC § 2770(e)). Here, if the City does not act in a timely manner or denies the reclamation plan without consideration of SMARA requirements, the City’s actions can be appealed to the SMGB. 1 March 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1635 2 March 18, 2024 Planning Commission Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=admme15GedU 3 May 20, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1639 4 May 20, 2024 Planning Commission Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlbEFuu0NZo 5 August 19, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1645 6 August 19, 2024: Planning Commission Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBfYn_XGCuE Pacifica City Council 4
September 23, 2024
To initiate an appeal, the Applicant would first file an intent of notice to appeal with the SMGB and the SMGB would determine whether they have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. (14 CCR § 3651.)Here it is likely SMGB would find that they have jurisdiction in the event of a denial of a reclamation plan given that, among other things, DMR has already determined that the original 970,000 cubic yard reclamation plan meets SMARA requirements. At the hearing, the SMGB would be asked to determine whether the reclamation plan substantially meets the requirements set forth in SMARA, SMGB policy regulations and Pacifica’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (see 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 3659; PMC Section 9-2.01 et seq.)In the event that the SMGB determines that the City failed to act in accordance with due process or that the City did not comply with state reclamation requirements in denying the Reclamation Plan, SMGB could “approve” the Reclamation Plan. (PRC § 2770(g)(1)(A).)While, the SMGB does have authority to approve the Reclamation Plan, SMGB does not have authority to take final action on the Reclamation Plan as it is contingent on CEQA review and other discretionary actions that only the City can authorize. Thus, SMGB would remand the appeal to the City for final action on the Reclamation Plan pursuant to the directives provided in the SMGB decision on appeal.
Ultimately, the City does have an obligation to follow SMARA, and any SMGB decision following appeal as they have ultimate oversight over reclamation plans. Given that DMR has effectively approved a prior version of the reclamation plan, an appeal to SMGB could result in the approval of a reclamation plan with higher amounts of fill, in addition to the loss of local control in the implementation of reclamation plan. In summary, if the appeal is successful, the City might be forced to approve a reclamation plan, after initially denying it while losing the benefits of conditioning the plan to satisfy the publicly raised issues and concerns.
C. HISTORY OF RECLAMATION PROPOSALS:
Several Reclamation Plans have been proposed for the Rockaway Quarry in the past. The following table presents a snapshot of the Reclamation Plans proposed since 1996 and includes the June 2024 Reduced Fill Alternative shaded in blue for comparison purposes.
Quarry Reclamation Plans Comparison
N
o
.
Reclamation
Plan Year
Flat building
pads created
by reclamation
grading?
Earthworks Quantities
Total earthwork
on-site (CY) Cut (CY) Fill (CY) Net (CY) (Imported Fill) 1 10/28/19961,2 Yes 1,414,400 707,200 707,200 0
2 1/22/20163 Yes 216,000 108,300 107,700 600
Cut
3 4/5/2023 No 1,140,000 85,000 1,055,000 970,000
Fill
4 10/23/2023 No 1,014,000 70,000 944,000 874,000 Fill
5 6/28/20244 Yes 723,000 70,000 653,000 583,000 Fill
1. The 1996 Plan was proposed with Calera Creek in a different location on the Eastern Parcel. Upon the creek’s relocation and construction of the City-owned multi-purpose trail, the area of the Quarry Parcel was reduced by approximately 30% limiting available space for earthwork and soil engineering operations.
Pacifica City Council 5
September 23, 2024
2. A draft of a 1998 plan was located by the City for which only partial information is available. This plan also would not have imported fill and instead would have obtained material to fill reclamation areas by altering the existing topography of the site. Available details of this Plan are included in the March 18, 2024, staff report.
3. The 2016 Plan prepared by the current owner proposed development that did not get approved. Subsequent focus is to reclaim the Quarry to comply with SMARA requirements.
4. The Reduced Fill Alternative to the October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan.
PREVIOUS PLANS
Plan No. 3 and No. 4 in the table above, were prepared in April 2023 and October 2023 and presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearings on June 5, 2023, and March 18, 2024, respectively. The Figure below depicts the two above referenced proposals. As depicted in the figure, the Revised Reclamation Plan, October 2023, presented at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission hearing, resulted in a net reduction of 96,000 CY in imported fill.
April 2023 Reclamation Plan Proposal Vs. October 2023 Reclamation Plan Proposal April 2023 Reclamation Plan (presented June 5, 2023)
Salient Features of the April 2023 Plan are as follows:
• Reclamation of all mined lands.
• Elimination of the eroded and unvegetated mined lands. • Elimination of slopes steeper than 2:1, and removal of eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety.
• Grading to include 1,140,000 total cubic yards of earthwork with 85,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope.
• Preservation of the southern bluff at its current elevation while importing 970,000 cubic yards of fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and filling the quarry pit across to the main face up to an elevation of 150 feet.
Pacifica City Council 6
September 23, 2024
The plan aims to restore the quarry to its natural, pre-mining state, aligning with the surrounding topography. It includes trail improvements, wetland creation, revegetation, drainage, grading, dust control, and a detailed four-year phasing plan. The timeline is tentative, pending regulatory approvals. No development or flat pads are proposed.
The April 2023 Reclamation Plan as analyzed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) indicated that an average of 161 haul truck trips per day and ten employee trips per day would be generated based on the imported fill quantities associated with the subject plan. Haul truck traffic circulation in and out of the Quarry site would consist of inbound haul trucks coming from the north and accessing the project site from southbound State Route 1 through the Old Quarry Road connection, an existing dirt access road located about one-third mile south of Reina Del Mar Avenue; this access point is currently blocked by large boulders that would be removed as part of the access plan. Vehicles egress from the site would be accommodated at the existing traffic signal at State Route 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue. Trucks will turn left onto State Route 1 and return to the north via Interstate 280.
All the components of the April 2023 Reclamation Plan are described in detail in the project’s staff report, dated June 5, 20237, the April 2023 Reclamation Plan, and the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Environmental Impact Report8.
October 2023 Reclamation Plan (presented March 18, 2024) Revisions were made to the April 2023 Reclamation Plan in response to the Planning Commission and public comments and concerns. These concerns pertained primarily to imported fill and the criteria for such fill, air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effects of the project on biological resources, soil testing criteria of imported fill, potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff, haul truck traffic and trips, and cultural resources and need from tribal consultation. The October 2023 Reclamation Plan was presented at the Planning Commission hearing on March 18, 2024.
The October 2023 Reclamation Plan also proposed reclamation of all mined lands, elimination of the eroded and unvegetated mined lands, elimination of slopes steeper than 2:1, and removal of eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety. The slopes established by this Plan conform to the surrounding topography and are consistent with a natural open space hillside relevant to premining conditions. There is no development proposed with this plan and no flat pads are created. Salient features of this revised Plan (October 2023), presented at the Planning Commission’s public hearing on March 18, 2024, included:
• A reduction in the amount of grading and imported fill through a modification to the reclamation activities previously proposed for areas along and/or within the Quarry Parcel, including the East Flank, Calera Creek crossing, Calera Creek bank, Western Trail, Quarry Pit, and Quarry Face in the April 2023 Plan. • Grading in the amount of 1,014,000 total cubic yards of total earthwork with 70,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope.
• Preservation of the southern bluff at its current elevation while bringing 874,000 cubic yards of imported fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and filling the quarry pit across to the main face up to an elevation of 135, identified as a critical elevation at the quarry face, as described above.
• Provision of an ADA accessible path connecting the multi-use trail across to the northwesterly overlook point of the bluff.
7 June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Report and Minutes:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1541 8 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/community-development/planning-division/environmentaldocuments Pacifica City Council 7
September 23, 2024
• Reduction in average haul truck trips from 161 trips per day to an average of 146 haul truck trips per day due to a reduction in imported fill. This represents a reduction of an average of 15 haul truck trips per day. The average employee trips per day would remain at an average of 10 trips per day. As part of the revised proposal, the Applicant committed to capping the maximum number of haul truck trips at 161 trips per day, prohibiting outbound trips during morning drop-off hours at Vallemar School and coordinating with the City and Pacifica School District on traffic and other issues during the course of the reclamation activities.
Other components included in the October 2023 Reclamation Plan in response to comments received at the June 3, 2023, Planning Commission hearing included:
• Exclusion of soil source sites in Santa Clara County for imported fill. • Expansion of soil screening to include routine, independent and third-party soil testing at the direction of the City, throughout the life of the project. • Water quality testing to ensure that Calera Creek is not affected by imported soils.
Should the testing indicate contamination, the revised Plan provided for improvements to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared as part of the revised Plan. • An updated Dust Control Plan consisting of dust mitigation measures to control fugitive dust emission generated by activities such as site grading, transporting and unloading of fill material, in accordance with applicable state and local laws through Best Management Practices (BMPs). This plan also includes monitoring procedures that allow for monitoring conditions related to potential fugitive using monitoring equipment including wind speed meters and air quality meters These meters would be located in the vicinity of the reclamation activity to monitor conditions so that corrective measures, including halting reclamation activity, can be taken, if required, to comply with applicable air quality standards.
• An “Adaptive Management Plan” involving a commitment from the Applicant to periodically meet with the City staff during the course of reclamation activities to address, among other matters, traffic management and any operational modifications needed to address ongoing traffic impacts that may be associated with reclamation activities.
While the October 2023 Reclamation Plan provided a new reduction in imported fill, several concerns were reiterated and raised by the commissioners and members of the public at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission public hearing. These comments/concerns are as follows:
• Extensive amount of project materials to review in a short period of time. • Quantity of foreign or imported soil proposed for the project and impacts of imported or foreign soil.
• The number of trucks trips and accommodation of seasonal variations, including winter and rains, with respect to truck trips, and grading management to account for traffic and stormwater impacts.
• Overall traffic impacts.
• Impact to soil/vegetation and marine habitats.
• Tribal cultural resource impacts, and
• Public Health and the environmental impacts.
The Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 6, 2024, to allow the applicant time to address the comments and concerns expressed at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission hearing. The May 6, 2024, hearing was later cancelled upon the Applicant’s request and replaced with a Planning Commission Study Session held on May 20, 2024.
Pacifica City Council 8
September 23, 2024
May 20, 2024, Study Session
The May 20, 2024, Study Session provided an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive responses from the Applicant to the questions raised at previous hearings, pose additional questions, and provide critical input on the path forward, principally with respect to the level of Planning Commission’s interest in a Reduced Fill Alternative proposed by the Applicant and Owner.
At the study session, the Owner of the project site took the opportunity to explain the criteria and reasons for the imported fill of 847,000 CY proposed for the October 2023 Reclamation Plan.
These criteria included grading design for the contours to conform to the surrounding topography in reclamation and make the site adaptable for alternative land uses such as trails and open space while anticipating that the site may never be developed anytime in the foreseeable future. The Plan was developed to meet the SMARA objectives and proposed stabilizing the quarry face at the height where major erosion was identified on the face of the quarry, as described above. This Plan assumed open space as the end use for the Quarry property, indefinitely, which, according to the Applicant, requires a large amount of fill.
In response to the concerns and comments expressed by the Planning Commission and public, the Applicant also presented the Reduced Fill Alternative for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the Study Session. This alternative would result in a reduction in the fill required for reclamation by assuming future development at the Quarry in accordance with the 2040 Pacifica General Plan. The Applicant further suggested proceeding with a phased reclamation of the former Quarry, in accordance with a reduced fill alternative, concurrently with a specific planning process for future development of the site. Overall, the discussion at the study session centered around direction, questions and concerns that are encapsulated as follows:
• The possibility for further reduction in imported fill to less amounts than proposed and/or maximizing native fill and/or zero import/foreign fill. • The origin of truck trips and traffic safety given the terrain off-site and other traffic concerns.
• Reclamation phasing and correspondence with the specific plan process. • Main purpose of a future specific plan and potential specific plan process. • The SMARA requirements and process.
• Rigorous soil testing and analysis for imported fill. • Tribal cultural resource impacts.
• Potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff.
Applicant’s Proposed Reduced Fill Alternative
In response to the input received by the public and Planning Commission, the applicant proposed a Reduced Fill Alternative on July 2, 2024.The Reduced Fill Alternative differs from both the April 2023 and the October 2023 Reclamation Plans, in that it proposes grading that would allow development in accordance with the current 2040 General Plan, with the possibility to lower the amounts of grading after City preparation of a Specific Plan. It does not include or rely on any specific future development proposal. The proposed Reduced Fill Alternative would entail the following:
• 723,000 total cubic yards of earthwork while obtaining 70,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope representing a further reduction in the amount of imported fill compared to the previous Reclamation Plans. • 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and filling the quarry pit up to a flat pad downgrade from the quarry face at an elevation of 135 to an elevation of 85 feet at a slope of 2:1, while preserving the southern bluff at its current elevation.
Pacifica City Council 9
September 23, 2024
As part of this proposal, the Applicant has offered to engage with the community and assist the City in the planning process to develop a City Initiated Specific Plan for the Quarry site, consistent with the goals of the City Council, which could further reduce the amount of imported fill. The Applicant proposes to limit the amount of imported fill for the reclamation to 400,000 cubic yards, subject to the approval of a Specific Plan for the Quarry site by 2027 and accordingly proposes to implement the Reduced Fill Alternative over four years.
Figure 1: The figure below compares the revised October 2023 Reclamation Plan and the proposed Reduced Fill Alternative, July 2, 2024.
Pacifica City Council 10 September 23, 2024
Figure 2: The figure below details a Preliminary Concept Plan that shows the grading associated with the Reduced Fill Alternative.
August 19, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
On August 19, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project, with a recommendation from staff to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative. During the public hearings with the Planning Commission, there were several concerns raised including the amount of imported fill, traffic, phasing of the reclamation and a future specific plan, SMARA requirements, testing, tribal cultural resources impacts, and water quality impacts. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 0-5-2 (Devine and Godwin absent) on a motion to approve the Specific Plan SP‐179‐22, Quarry Use Permit UP‐71‐16, Variance PV‐531‐22, and Tree Permit TP‐1‐22 (File No. 2016‐001); recommend approval to the City Council on Rezoning RZ‐210‐22 and Development Plan DP‐86‐22 (collectively referred to as “Development Permits”); and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for a reclamation plan to reclaim the former Rockaway Quarry including construction of public access trails, drainage infrastructure, and wetland mitigation areas, on two undeveloped parcel totaling approximately 86-acres (“Project”). While the Planning Commission did not vote to deny the Project, the unanimous “No” vote on the collective motion to approve with no further action from the Planning Commission is considered an effective denial.
D. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE DENIAL
Two appeals of the Planning Commission’s actions were filed, both of which are discussed below.
APPEAL FILED BY DAN STEGINK
On August 29, 2024, Dan Stegink timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission de facto denial of the Pacifica City Council 11 September 23, 2024
Development Permits (Attachment D). Stegink cited four (4) reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below.
Basis 1. Felons involved should be barred from doing business in Pacifica.
Mr. Stegink argues that William Gilmartin and Alan Varela and their company were banned from doing business in San Francisco and property owner Paul Heule and his representative John Zentner pleaded guilty to chargers under the Endangered Species Act.
Staff Analysis:
The City is not able to prohibit any individual and/or entity from doing business in Pacifica.
Basis 2. Nothing in Quarry requires remediation or imported fill.
Mr. Stegink challenges that only a small portion of the Quarry is unsafe, the “Quarry Pit” is flat and thus does not require imported fill.
Staff Analysis:
Under State law, as discussed above, the property owner is required to reclaim the Quarry site, subject to SMARA and the City’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-2.01 and obtain a SMARA Compliance Review from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation.
Basis 3. Quarry is an Indigenous cultural asset worth of both California and National registration of Historic Places Designation.
Mr. Stegink states that the Native American village of Timigtac may have been located on the site of the Rockaway Quarry.
Staff Analysis:
Per the August 13, 20249 Memo by Raney Planning and Management, Inc., although the Rockaway Quarry does appear eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1 for its association with reconstruction efforts following the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, the resource does not demonstrate sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing on the registries. Archival research did not reveal information sources that can be used to reconstruct the operational processes, personnel, contracts, business relationships, revenue, or policies involved with shaping Rockaway Quarry. Field investigations revealed no significant historic-era features or materials. As such, the resource is recommended as not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP or CRHP under Criterion B/2, C/3, or D/4.
Basis 4. The EIR report is inadequate.
Mr. Stegink claims that the Biological Resources Report in the EIR fails to mention the presence of Western Pond turtles, California Red Legged frogs, and Endangered Species Act protected San Francisco Garter Snake.
Staff Analysis:
The EIR analyzes the potential for these species to be on site. The EIR states that the Project site does not contain suitable aquatic habit with ponds and basking areas that would support Western pond turtles. The EIR acknowledges two known detections of California Red-Legged frogs on the Project site and the Project includes restoration of a 0.20- acre California RedLegged frog pond. The EIR acknowledges that the San Francisco Garter Snake is known to occur on Project site. Additionally, there are mitigation measures in the EIR that require training of employees to identify these species during reclamation activities, conduct surveys prior to reclamation activities, and limit reclamation activities during known active times for both species. 9 https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1541 Pacifica City Council 12 September 23, 2024
Summary
For the reasons set forth above, staff recommends that the City Council deny Mr. Stegink’s appeal.
APPEAL FILED BY BAYLANDS SOIL PACIFICA, LLC (“BAYLANDS”) On August 27, 2024, Baylands timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission de facto denial of the Project (Attachment E). Baylands cited a number of reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below.
Basis 1. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial because it was not supported by substantial evidence.
Baylands contends that the Planning Commission’s decision should be overturned because it was decided without any findings to deny the Development Permits.
Staff Analysis:
The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits. Therefore, no findings were necessary. Further, the City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and will be making findings when they make their decision on the Development Permits.
Basis 2. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Project because the Commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
Baylands contends that Planning Commission’s denial was not based on substantial evidence and offered opinions not based facts.
Staff Analysis:
See discussion above under Basis 1.
Basis 3. The Planning Commissioner erroneously stated that they could not make the required findings for approving the Project but they did not adopt any findings to reject the Project Approvals.
Baylands contends that the Planning Commission is required to make specific findings supported by substantial evidence to deny the Development Permits. Baylands states that the Planning Commission believed it needed to know the final use of the Project site to make the necessary findings for approval, but that is not accurate because knowledge of specific proposed use(s) of the Project site is not required to approve a Reclamation Plan and associated permits.
Staff Analysis:
See discussion above under Basis 1.Further, although the Planning Commission noted concerns about determining the ultimate “end use” for the project site, they did not make findings as to this issue. Lastly, discussion about the end use was not inappropriate given the proposal by the applicant to phase the reclamation and concurrently move forward with a Specific Plan for the Quarry site.
Basis 4. The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion because the Planning Commission did not adopt any findings to deny the Project in violation of State Law.
Baylands contends that the Planning Commission did not adopt any findings in the denial of the Project.
Staff Analysis:
See discussion above under Basis 1.
Pacifica City Council 13 September 23, 2024
Basis 5. The Planning Commission erroneously claimed that the Reclamation Plan would not mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Baylands contends that the Planning Commission erroneously failed to certify and adopt the Final EIR.
Staff Analysis:
As the Planning Commission did not approve the project, no CEQA action was required.(CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.)It should be noted that the Final EIR concludes that all significant environmental impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Basis 6. The Planning Commission misconstrued the Project Specific Plan.
Baylands contends that the Planning Commission failed to provide evidence in effective denial of Specific Plan SP-197-22 and misconstrued a Specific Plan required under PMC Section 9-
4.2208 from a discretionary land use plan that may be adopted pursuant to the California Government Code.
Staff Analysis:
See above discussion under Basis 1. It should also be noted that per Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.2212, the Project requires approval of a Specific Plan, which states that no grading or excavation permit shall be issued by the City for any location in the P-D District or Hillside Preservation District, unless the grading and excavation is necessary for the establishment or maintain of any approved specific plan. As the Project site current zoning contains a Hillside Preservation District Overly, the Reclamation Plan must obtain a Development Plan and Specific Plan for any reclamation activities. There is no evidence in the record that the Planning Commission did not understand this requirement.
Basis 7. The City Council should review this Appeal and reject the Planning Commission’s Decision rejecting the Project approvals.
As this a de novo hearing, Baylands requests that the City Council review the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s de facto denial of the Project.
Staff Analysis:
As this appeal is heard de novo, the City Council may approve, deny or modify the application as if it were reviewing the action anew.(PMC Section 9-4.3208) Thus, the Council may consider the application and determine whether the Reclamation Plan in fact should be approved. In considering the issues raised by this application and following review of all the application materials, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff determines that the findings can be made and that the appeal should be upheld based on the analysis set forth in more detail below.
E. ANALYSIS OF THE REDUCED FILL ALTERNATIVE
Consistency with General Plan and Municipal Code Requirements. The City of Pacifica General Plan identifies the Rockaway Quarry property as “most prominent potential development site” for promoting tourism and economic development in Pacifica by extending the visitor-oriented environment and pursuing uses such as destination hotels and inns on the developable portion of this site as encapsulated in General Plan policies ES-I-5 (pg. 2-13) and ES-1-18 (pg. 2-14).
As shown below, the 2040 General Plan designates approximately half of the site, including the upland areas and the Calera Creek riparian corridor for “Conservation” that will remain open space with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The remaining portions of the Quarry site comprising of the “Flats” (the Eastern Parcel) and the “Pad” overlooking Rockway Beach on the Quarry Parcel are designated “Visitor-Serving Commercial”.
The General Plan envisions the “Visitor-Serving Commercial” areas as supporting potential uses Pacifica City Council 14 September 23, 2024
such as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail uses integrated with the Rockaway Beach district. General Plan Policy LU-I-25 (pg. 4-36) recommends the preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry site to enable responsible development and environmental conservation of this site.
The General Plan also requires completion of the reclamation of the former quarry pursuant to the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica Municipal Code, prior to any future development on this site.
The applicant’s proposal promotes the General Plan’s vision and direction for the future development of the Rockaway Quarry site. It also provides the opportunity to initiate the proposed reclamation activity using the Reduced Fill Alternative, and a City-initiated specific planning process to be conducted concurrently, which is consistent with the General Plan and the goals of the City Council.
As set forth in the attached resolution and ordinance, staff has also determined that all of the required findings for approval can be made.
F. Project Issues
There have been several recurring concerns raised by the public and Planning Commission members. The Reduced Fill Alternative resolves several concerns and deficiencies in previous iterations of the Reclamation Plan as discussed below.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in the Memorandum, dated August 13, 2024, from the City’s CEQA consultant, the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources as they related to the Quarry site were evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020090036) for the April 2023 Reclamation Plan, which had a larger footprint and more intensive grading than that proposed with the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Draft EIR disclosed and discussed the Pacifica City Council 15 September 23, 2024
resources known to be on the site and determined a less than significant impact to cultural and tribal cultural resources, subject to Measures Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) and (b).
These Mitigation Measures include provisions that will be implemented if project grounddisturbing activities result in inadvertent discoveries of precontact or historic artifacts, including human remains and resources of cultural and religious significance to Native American tribes.
An Extended Phase I Survey and Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared by ALTA, which collectively encompassed the entirety of the project site, was also reviewed in response to public comments on the EIR. This study and report, as well as a concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), support the analyses and conclusions of the Draft EIR.
The Mitigation Measures noted above would be made part of the conditions of approval by reference and be implemented during construction. As such, additional CEQA review is not warranted in this regard.
However, the property owner has indicated that he would work with the Ramaytush Tribe in pursuing a Specific Plan for the Quarry site. Approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative as conditioned would require the owner to fund a Specific Plan after the City’s approval of the reclamation plan, which would provide a framework for these stakeholder discussions to take place.
Water Quality
Best Management practices for protection of water quality would be implemented during project construction. These include, but would not be limited to silt fences, check dams, vegetated nonoperational/undisturbed areas and drainage swales. The Applicant provided a stormwater management plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for the October 2023 Reclamation Plan, which will be updated, subject to the approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative, which, as conditioned, represents a significantly reduced scope of work and is phased to be less intensive than previous proposals. Staff has included a proposed condition of approval requiring review and approval of a detailed, updated stormwater management plan and SWPPP for the Reduced Fill Alternative for protection of water quality during implementation of the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned.
Soil Testing
The Soil Management Plan, prepared November 2019, and last updated October 2023 includes “Soil Review and Acceptance Guidelines” that provide a prescriptive step process to ensure soil proposed for importing is subject to testing requirements in accordance with applicable U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Methods and specifies the environmental screening levels (ESL) for soil testing.
The last updated Soil Management Plan requires additional testing of imported soil for Sudden Oak Death tree disease pathogens and Valley fever fungus, addresses identification and includes procedure to identify, remove, and properly dispose of any soil that is identified during the course of the testing process and removal of contaminated soil discovered after it has been placed onsite. The updated plan also provides for periodic independent testing by the City of Pacifica, subject to certain requirements, and reimbursement to the City for the costs of up to four onsite tests performed by the City per year. However, the Soil Management Plan does not clearly identify oversight authority or monitoring procedures for the exercise of oversight.
Based on the above discussion, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring review and approval of the project’s soil management plan by California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The condition includes the requirement for soil testing at a regular interval and required soil sampling of no less than every other truck importing the fill for reclamation and grading per the approved project
“Zero” Imported Fill
A condition of “zero” imported fill would require generating fill on site for reclaiming the former Quarry, in accordance with SMARA objectives that set the framework for evaluating a reclamation plan. Pursuant to SMARA, a reclamation plan must be based upon the character of Pacifica City Council 16 September 23, 2024
the surrounding area and such characteristics of the property as type of overburden, soil stability, topography, geology, climate, stream characteristics, and principal mineral commodities, and establish site-specific criteria for evaluating compliance with the approved reclamation plan, including topography, revegetation and sediment, and erosion control, to the extent that they are consistent with the planned or actual subsequent use or uses of the mining site.(SMARA Section 2773 (a) and (b).
The Rockaway Quarry parcel, is characterized by the: the Hilltop (the high ground on the north edge of the parcel); the East Flank (the hillside comprised mostly of old quarry debris on the east slope of the Quarry parcel); the Quarry Face (the scarp left by mining in the parcel center, consisting of limestone beds); the Quarry Pit (the bowl remaining in the bottom of the old Quarry), and the Southern Bluff (the old edge of the Quarry on the south adjacent to the ocean).
The current topography of the Quarry is predominantly composed of steep slopes; major erosion has been identified immediately below the 135-foot contour where there are nearly vertical mining cuts and lack of vegetation. Fill is required for Quarry reclamation and SMARA Section 3704(d) establishes a guideline whereby reclamation of the Quarry pit with fill must be at slopes no greater than 2:1 and Section 3704(e) requires fill slopes to conform with the surrounding topography and/or end use.
The Draft EIR for the April 2023 Reclamation Plan considered and rejected the “Zero” Imported Fill alternative as the “No Soil Hauling Alternative”, involving using the on-site soil collected from the cuts on project site, rather than using imported fill soils. As indicated in the EIR, and all reclamation proposals for the Quarry site, including the Reduced Fill Alternative, the cuts proposed on site generate fill (70,000 cubic yards) that is not sufficient for reclamation.
Additional fill generation on site would require cuts to the Hilltop area and Southern Bluff involving removal of the remnant native-dominated on the East Flank and alteration to the ocean views afforded by the Southern Bluff due to changes in the existing elevations because of cuts.
The excessive cut to the project site is inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan vision and policies (see, CD-1-18, pg. 3-14). As recognized in the 2040 General Plan “The sensitive natural and visual resources of hillsides also apply to the undeveloped coastal bluffs and promontories, including the Northern Coastal Bluffs, the Quarry site uplands, and Aramai Point (also known as the Rockaway Headlands)”(GP pg. 3-10), and that “Three promontories dominate Pacifica’s Coastal Zone and visually represent the coastal character of Pacifica. These landforms—Pedro Point Headlands, Aramai Point (formerly known as the Rockaway Headlands), and Mori Point (including the Quarry site uplands)” (pg. 3-12). Additionally, generating fill on site would intensify noise impacts from potential machinery needed for generating on-site fill.
G. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Pursuant to a rigorous analysis of the Reduced Fill Alternative, comments received by the public and the Planning Commission, collaboration with City Departments and City’s subject matter experts and consultants, staff has proposed the following new and revised conditions of approval for City Council's consideration to resolve and mitigate issues concerning the approval of the Reclamation Plan. The conditions address Project phasing to ensure the reclamation proceeds at a slower pace while the City is concurrently undertaking a Specific Plan and that imported fill is no more than necessary for the ultimate development of the site. Further, the conditions require a number of plans to be reviewed by the City as the project progresses, including traffic, soil management and grading plans. In order to ensure the public, Planning Commission and City Council continue to be kept informed of the project, the new conditions also include an annual reporting requirement.
Pacifica City Council 17 September 23, 2024
The new and revised conditions are set forth in full below. Condition numbers below are listed as found in the attached Resolution, Exhibit C.
9. Any reclamation undertaken pursuant to the approved Project (Reclamation Plan) shall be in phases and in accordance with Grading and Management Plans as determined by a geotechnical analysis prepared by the applicant, peer-reviewed, and approved by the Community Development Department, Public Works Department/Engineering Division as detailed below:
A. Any grading on the Project site shall be conducted in the phases, as follows:
1. Phase 1:
a. Phase 1 shall incorporate no more than 100,000 cubic yards of imported fill for the first two (2) years from the commencement of reclamation upon issuance of all required ministerial and discretionary approvals "Necessary Approvals" from State and Federal agencies (listed below in subsection B.). b. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for commencement of reclamation at the Project site, the applicant shall submit a Phase 1 Grading and Management Plan subject to the maximum imported fill requirements set forth in (A)(1)(a) above.
2. Phase 2:
a. Following Phase 1, any additional reclamation shall be subject to the following phasing and maximum imported fill amounts, contingent on a city-initiated, community-led draft specific plan (“Specific Plan”) for the Project site being prepared and distributed for public release within the first three (3) years from the commencement of Phase 1:
i. If a Specific Plan has been prepared, the applicant shall submit a Phase 2 Grading and Management Plan for the maximum amount of imported fill based on that amount necessary for development that is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan for development of the Project site. ii. If no Specific Plan has been prepared, the applicant may submit a Phase 2 Grading and Management Plan for no more than an additional 100,000 cubic yards of imported fill.
3. Phase 3:
a. If no Specific Plan has been prepared and distributed within the first four (4) years from the commencement of Phase 1, the applicant may submit a Phase 3 Grading and Management Plan for a maximum imported fill of 583,000 cubic yards, or such lower amount as is necessary to develop land uses at the Project site in accordance with the applicable General Plan land use designations. b. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for continued reclamation at the Project site for any additional grading and import of fill after completion of Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a Phase 3 Grading and Management Plan for any additional grading and import of fill, subject to the maximum imported fill amounts set forth in (A)(3)(a) above.
B. Necessary Approvals:
The following approvals are required to be obtained prior to issuance of any grading permit for commencement of reclamation of the Project site:
• Coastal Development Permit (California Coastal Commission); • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit (US Army Corp of Engineers); • Section 7 Biological Opinion (US Fish and Wildlife Service); • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver or Issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (CA Regional Water Quality Control Board); and
• SMARA Compliance Review (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation).
Pacifica City Council 18 September 23, 2024
10. Property owner shall fund all City costs for the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Quarry site immediately upon the City’s approval of the Reclamation Plan. This obligation shall be documented in a Reimbursement Agreement to be entered into with the City, in a form acceptable to City, that provides for the owner’s full funding of City’s costs and expenses for the preparation a Specific Plan for the Quarry site, including without limitation, all costs related to community engagement, workshops and any public outreach as determined by City.
11. Prior to issuance of grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall provide a detailed Traffic Management Plan, including performance standards for monitoring and implementation, in conjunction with the Grading Management Plan, for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Engineering Divisions. The applicant shall be responsible for all peer review consultation costs incurred by the City to complete the review.
12. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall seek review and approval of the proposed Soil Management Plan from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for imported fill screening and provide evidence of DTSC approval to the City. The soil sampling interval shall be no less than every other truck importing the fill for reclamation and grading per the approved project. The approved plan shall be provided to the City for implementation and monitoring.
13. Prior to issuance of grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall submit a compiled set of detailed Civil Plans that shall, at a minimum include the grading plan for each Phase, stormwater management plan, erosion control plan, existing and proposed site sections, and necessary details. The grading permit submittal for each Phase shall also include all applicable documents per current industry standards and technical guidance including, but not limited to, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Water Quality Sample Plan, fungi testing requirements, Dust Mitigation Plan, Adaptive Mitigation Plan, and Soil Management Plan to be submitted to the Community Development Department and be subject to peer review prior to acceptance/approval by the City.
14. Prior to the issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Community Development Director for the proposed revegetation in the Reclamation Plan and tree replacement plantings required in the MMRP. The Applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction that the Project geotechnical engineer confirms that tree replanting species and locations are appropriate and will ensure slope stability.
16. The Applicant shall comply with a prohibition on exiting truck trips during Vallemar School drop-off hours not less than from 8-9 AM on days when school is in session and document it in the Traffic Management Plan for each phase of reclamation activities.
17. The Applicant shall not source import soil from any location in Santa Clara County (as proposed in the Revised Reclamation Plan submitted to the City of Pacifica on October 23, 2023).
18. Prior to the issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit, Applicant shall enter into a post-reclamation Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for the ongoing maintenance of the storm drain system including but not limited to maintenance of the sediment junction structures. The O&M Agreement shall be recorded on the Project site and bind the current and future property owners to the maintenance obligations contained in the Agreement.
19. An Annual Report shall be prepared by the City each year that summarizes the following:
Pacifica City Council 19 September 23, 2024
A. Progress of the Reclamation Plan over the preceding year beginning January 1 and ending on December 31
B. Upcoming reclamation activities
C. All grading and development activity conducted in the reporting period on the property, and compliance with all conditions of approval imposed on the project.
D. In preparation of this Annual Report, the city may retain independent consultants to assist in data gathering, analysis, and report preparation.
E. The applicant shall provide all required information requested by the City including but not limited to truck traffic, soil management, biological surveys to monitor compliance of all conditions of approval that is needed for preparation of an Annual Report F. The applicant shall fund all aspects of report preparation, including but not limited to reimbursement for staff time (including City Attorney time), consultant fees, and direct costs associated with report production and distribution.
G. The Annual Report shall be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting in March each year for acceptance.
Summary
In light of the above, staff recommends the state-mandated reclamation be approved with conditions to require the reclamation to be conducted in a phased manner with limited fill, while the City concurrently undertakes a city initiated, community led specific planning process at the applicant’s expense.
H. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Development Permits, after considering the appeal. The Council is also the final decision-maker on the proposed Rezoning and Development Plan. In the event that the Council determines to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project, the Council should approve the appeal filed by Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC and deny the appeal filed by Dan Stegink by adopting the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to deny the appeal filed by Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC and approve the appeal filed by Dan Stegink, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s denial by staff to be brought back to Council at a later date.
I. RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:S
The Project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s 2024-25 Work Plan.
Conditions of approval that require submittal of a deposit to fund the preparation of a Specific Plan are consistent with City Council’s 2024-25 Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.
J. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
The City Council must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA prior to any action to approve the Project. The City, as the lead agency, has prepared the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City published a Notice of Preparation for the EIR on September 2, 2020 and held a Scoping Meeting on September 16, 2020. On February 16, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (DEIR).
Publication of the Notice of Availability began a forty-five (45) day public review period, concluding April 4, 2022.CEQA Guidelines Appendix G sets forth a set of questions to guide evaluation of potential environmental impacts across a variety of resource areas. The DEIR Pacifica City Council 20 September 23, 2024
found that all impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Staff recommends City Council certify the FEIR, adopt the Findings of Fact, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving the appeal filed by Baylands Soils Pacifica, LLC, denying the appeal filed by Dan Stegink, and overturning the Planning Commission’s effective denial as discussed above. Staff also recommends certification and adoption of the Final EIR, with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the Project. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff has received a number of public comments (Attachment F).
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct impact since all costs would be borne by the Appellant Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (PDF) Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (DOCX) Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (PDF) Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink (PDF)
Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC (PDF) Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (PDF)