RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL OF DAN STEGNIK AND UPHOLDING
APPEAL OF BAYLANDS SOILS PACIFICA, LLC, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S EFFECTIVE DENIAL OF VARIOUS ACTIONS TO APPROVE THE ROCKAWAY QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN; CERTIFYING FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND
MITIGATION 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) ______________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Paul Heule and The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC (“Owner”) and Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC (“Baylands”) (collectively, the “Applicant”).
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to reclaim and restore the former Rockaway Quarry as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), incorporated by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”), by importing approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of soil to restore the excavated quarry face and other areas to a pre-mining, establishing 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond, constructing new unpaved recreational trails and drainage improvements throughout the site, and removing 25 protected trees, on the former Rockaway Quarry, approximately 86-acre in area, located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project would not include any changes in use or building construction on the Project site; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the C-3X/HPD/CZ (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Project site would require a rezoning to the P-DX/HPD/CZ (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) zoning district from the existing C3X/HPD/CZ zoning district as required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay zoning district standards in PMC Section 9-4.2256, and require approval of a Development Plan to assign site-specific zoning pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203, both of which as legislative actions require City Council adoption of an ordinance pursuant to state law and the PMC; and WHEREAS, upon the Project site’s rezoning to the P-DX (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) Zoning District, the Project would require approval of a specific plan prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit to ensure consistency with the approved development plan pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2208 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Project would require approval of a quarry use permit to authorize reclamation of a quarry pursuant to PMC Section 9-2.04; and WHEREAS, the Project would require a variance pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3401 to exceed the coverage limitation for grading within the HPD overlay zoning district contained in PMC Section 9-4.2257; and
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
2 WHEREAS, the Project would require approval of a tree permit to authorize removal of protected trees pursuant to PMC Section 4-12.04(a); and WHEREAS, 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 must be separately approved for the Project by the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”); and
WHEREAS, henceforth, the rezoning and development plan shall collectively be referred to as the “Legislative Actions” and the specific plan, quarry use permit, variance, and tree permit shall collectively be referred to as the “Development Permits”; and WHEREAS, City of Pacifica Community Development Department (formerly the City of Pacifica Planning Department) is the Lead Agency for preparing the environmental review for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for Project approval; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica Planning Division issued a Notice of Preparation of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) on September 2, 2020, for the Project, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) for the Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City of Pacifica issued a Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability for the DEIR, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City of Pacifica distributed copies of the DEIR to public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to publicly accessible repositories including the Sharp Park and Sanchez branches of the Pacifica Library and invited comments on the DEIR in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and WHEREAS, the 45-day minimum public review and comment period for the DEIR ran from February 16, 2022, through April 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were collected and responses to comments (“RTC”) were considered in the revisions made to the DEIR to comprise the Final EIR (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) was made available to the public on January 13, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from the Project and recommends certain mitigation measures regarding such effects; and
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on June 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, where the commissioners and members of the public expressed concerns and requests for more information on the potential impacts of the Project. The comments primarily pertained to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effects on biological resources, soil testing criteria of imported fill, potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff, and traffic concerns; and
WHEREAS, in response to the comments expressed at the June 5, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, particularly those of the commissioners, the Applicant prepared a Revised Reclamation Plan (“Revised Project”). Among other revisions, the Revised Project requires a reduced amount of imported fill (874,000 cubic yards) relative to the amount required by the previously proposed Project, while still meeting the standards set forth by the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Reclamation Standards for the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975; and
WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant evaluated the Applicant’s changes and determined they do not change the analysis and conclusions in the draft and final EIRs and are anticipated to result in fewer environmental impacts than the previously proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant further determined that the Revised Project does not constitute: (1) information that shows a new significant impact; (2) information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels); (3) information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or (4) information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment. Rather, any new information clarifies or amplifies the analysis in the Draft EIR.
Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR was not warranted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Project on March 18, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the commissioners and members of the public expressed concerns regarding the Revised Project. The concerns primarily pertained to the quantity and quality of imported fill, traffic concerns including truck trips, consideration of seasonal variations in reclamations activities, and public health and environmental impacts including biological and tribal cultural resources impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 6, 2024, to allow the Applicant time to address the concerns expressed at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, the May 6, 2024 meeting was later cancelled and replaced with a Planning Commission Study Session held on May 20, 2024, upon the request of the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposed an alternative that would import approximately 583,000 cubic yards of soil with the option for further reductions after a specific planning process (the “Reduced Fill Alternative”) at the May 20, 2024, Study Session to receive input from the File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
4 Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the commissioners and members of the public reiterated concerns pertaining to quantity and quality of imported fill, soil testing, water quality, tribal cultural resources, truck trips and traffic, and sought information and clarification on the SMARA requirements and process, and the Reduced Fill Alternative and correspondence with the specific plan process; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR evaluated a Reduced Fill Alternative under which a minimal amount of fill required to meet SMARA requirements and slope stability would be used; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Fill Alternative would generally achieve the Project’s objectives and would result in fewer impacts than the Project in several resource areas. However, impacts would be similar in the majority of resource areas, such as biological resources and hydrology and water quality; and WHEREAS, the CEQA’s consultant provided a memorandum dated August 13, 2024in response to comments regarding the cultural and tribal cultural resources on the Quarry site, which provided additional discussion on the impacts and confirmed the analysis in the FEIR (“Cultural Resources Memorandum”). This memorandum does not constitute: (1) information that shows a new significant impact; (2) information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels); (3) information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or (4) information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment. Rather, any new information clarifies or amplifies the analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the Reduced Fill Alternative on August 19, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the proposed Project, but the motion failed with a vote of 0-5-2 (Devine and Godwin absent), effectively denying the Project; and
WHEREAS, Baylands Soils Pacifica, LLC (“Baylands”) filed an appeal (“Appeal 1”) of the Planning Commission’s effective denial on August 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, Dan Stegink (“Stegink”) filed an appeal (“Appeal 2”) of the Planning Commission’s effective denial on August 29, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
5 A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby approve the Appeal 1 and deny the Appeal 2 based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and overturn the Planning Commission’s effective denial on August 19, 2024 of the Project, and makes the following findings pertaining to these Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:
APPEAL FILED BY DAN STEGINK
Basis 1. Felons involved should be barred from doing business in Pacifica Finding: 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 Findings: 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
Finding: Per the August 13, 2024 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 Biological Resources Report is inadequate.
Finding: 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 Red-Legged 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.
As set forth above, there is no basis for Mr. Stegink’s appeal.
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
6 APPEAL FILED BY BAYLANDS SOIL PACIFICA, LLC (“BAYLANDS”) Basis 1. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial because it was not supported by substantial evidence
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 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.
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.
Basis 5. The Planning Commission erroneously claimed that the Reclamation Plan would not mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Basis 6. The Planning Commission misconstrued the Project Specific Plan Finding: The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits. Therefore, no findings were necessary. 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 and the Legislative Enactments. As to Basis 3, 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.
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. As to Basis 5, since the Planning Commission did not approve the project, no CEQA action was required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) As to Basis 6, there is no evidence in the record that the Planning Commission did not misconstrued the Specific Plan requirements.
For the foregoing reasons, Basis 1 – 6 above provide no grounds to overturn the Planning Commission’s effective denial.
Basis 7. The City Council should review this Appeal and reject the Planning Commission’s Decision rejecting the Project approvals.
Finding: 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 in the staff report and the findings set forth in with respect to the Development Permits below, as well as the findings set forth in the proposed Ordinance to approve the Legislative Enactments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica, hereby:
1. The City Council finds that the FEIR was presented to the City Council, that the FEIR was prepared, published, circulated, reviewed and completed in full compliance with State law and CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public review of the DEIR, that it has considered all comments on the DEIR and responses File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
7 to comments, that the FEIR adequately discusses all significant environmental issues, and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR.
2. The City Council finds that the information added in the FEIR does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation, but rather that additional information clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR.
3. The City Council further finds that the Cultural Resources Memorandum and any additional information submitted do not change the analysis and conclusions in the EIR. Further, the does not constitute: (1) information that shows a new significant impact; (2) information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels); (3) information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or (4) information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment. Rather, any new information clarifies or amplifies the analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.
4. The City Council hereby certifies the FEIR.
5. The City Council further finds that the Applicant’s proposed Reduced Fill Alternative was generally considered in the FEIR as a lesser fill alternative designated as the Reduced Fill Alternative, which would result in fewer impacts than the Revised Project in several resource areas. However, impacts would be similar in the majority of resource areas, such as biological resources and hydrology and water quality.
6. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval and recommendations of the Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A incorporated herein by reference, finds that such Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence and adopts the Findings of Fact.
7. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and in support of its approval and recommendations of the Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that requires all mitigation measures described in the FEIR be implemented by means of project conditions, agreements or other measures, as set forth in the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP.
8. The record of proceedings is available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, 1800 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica, CA 94044. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Department of the File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
8 City of Pacifica.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-179-22:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.
The proposed development plan, if approved, would allow reclamation of the Project site by grading, revegetation, and construction of trails, wetlands mitigation areas, and drainage improvements. The proposed specific plan would implement the development plan that authorizes these proposed improvements.
The Preliminary Concept Plan shows the proposed grading involving creation of a 5-acre flat pad instead of slope hill terrain. The estimated earthwork quantities associated with the grading work for the Reduced Fill Alternative are shown below in Table 1 and demonstrates a net fill of 583,000 cubic yards. The majority of the grading work for reclamation would occur in the Quarry Pit area of the Quarry Parcel. The resultant condition of the Project site following grading would approximate the pre-mining condition of the site based on historic aerial photography.
Table 1
Earthwork Quantities
The Project site is located within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay district.
The HPD overlay district includes coverage controls that limit the allowable surface area of buildings, paving, and grading based on a formula that relates to the size and average slope of the Project site as provided in PMC Section 9-4.2257. Sheets C0.1 and C1.0 in Attachment E of the October 2023 staff report demonstrate the grading area and calculations for allowable and proposed HPD coverage on the Quarry Parcel and Eastern Parcel that would not change in Reduced Fill Alternative The proposed reclamation plan would include the HPD coverage values provided in Table 2:
Table 2
Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Coverage
Parcel Coverage Allowed Per
PMC Sec. 9-4.2257 Coverage Proposed
Quarry
Parcel 3.0 acres (7.42% of site) 22.0 acres (54.45%)
Eastern
Parcel 15.5 acres (39.64% of site) 2.8 acres (7.16%)
Upon approval of the requested variance, discussed below, the Reduced Fill Alternative would be consistent with the HPD coverage controls.
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
9 The storm drainage system would utilize a combination of vegetated swales, stormwater inlets, and conveyance pipes that would capture runoff to prevent erosion of the reclaimed hillsides.
These improvements, collectively, would result in an appropriate reclamation of the former quarry. The regraded hillsides, drainage infrastructure, revegetation, and wetlands habitat mitigation are necessary and appropriate to implement the development plan which intends the Project site to be an undeveloped site suitable for future use in accordance with the General Plan. (2) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
As more fully described above, the proposed reclamation plan would be consistent with Design Guidelines related to Hillside Development, specifically those related to slope stability and erosion; visual impact; and access difficulty.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Quarry Use Permit UP-71-16:
(1) The reclamation plan conforms fully to the provisions of this chapter, the City's general plan, and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Sections 2772 and 2773, and shall comply with applicable requirements of State regulations (Sections 3500- 3505 and 3700-3713) as may be amended.
The 2040 General Plan Land Use chapter states that the Project site is Pacifica’s most prominent potential development site and prior to any future development, the property owner must complete reclamation of the former quarry. Therefore, the General Plan has considered the reclamation of the site and the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, conforms to the General Plan in that it would initiate reclamation of the former quarry concurrent with a specific planning process and facilitate end uses, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Furthermore, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with policies in the Open Space and Community Facilities Element, Conservation Element, Safety Element, and Land Use Element of the 2040 General Plan, as more fully detailed, above.
The Reduced Fill Alternative would be subject to the requirements established in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). As stated in Public Resources Code Section 2712, the Legislature’s intent in enacting SMARA was to assure that:
a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses;
b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment; and,
c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated.
As described in the staff report, the Reduced Fill Alternative would address adverse environmental effects and hazards to public health and safety presented by oversteep, unreclaimed slopes that resulted from past mining activities. It would reclaim the site concurrently with a specific planning process to facilitate end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Thus, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with the intent of SMARA.
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
10 The City provided the reclamation proposals by the Applicant to the Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR), the state agency responsible for administration of SMARA, in February 2022, February 2023 and August 2024, as required by Section 2722.1. DMR provided minor comments on the originally proposed reclamation plan on March 21, 2023.
The comments from DMR included two administrative items and one substantive item that DMR recommended be revised in the proposed reclamation plan. The Revised Reclamation Plan submitted in October 2023 incorporated the revisions requested by DMR that remain unchanged in the Reduced Fill Alternative, which was provided to the Division in August 2024. Therefore, the Reduced Fill Alternative should be considered complete for purposes of the informational requirements of SMARA.
While the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would entail limitations on the scope of earthwork, it would still be required to be consistent with SMARA Sections 2772 or 2773, and the applicable requirements of State regulations (14 CCR Sections 3500-3505 and 3700-3713). Specifically, the reclamation per the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with the requirements of SMARA including but not limited to the following:
A. Section 3503(f): Resoiling. When the reclamation plan calls for resoiling, coarse hard mine waste shall be leveled and covered with a layer of finer material or weathered waste. A soil layer shall then be placed on this prepared surface. Surface mines that did not salvage soil during their initial operations shall attempt, where feasible, to upgrade remaining materials. The use of soil conditioners, mulches, or imported topsoil shall be considered where revegetation is part of the reclamation plan and where such measures appear necessary. It is not justified, however, to denude adjacent areas of their soil, for any such denuded areas must in turn be reclaimed.
The Reduced Fill Alternative would necessarily import soil to regrade oversteep slopes and create slopes no steeper than 2:1 consistent with SMARA requirements.
The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would not denude adjacent areas of their soil.
B. Section 3503(g): Revegetation. When the reclamation plan calls for revegetation the available research addressing revegetation methods and the selection of species having good survival characteristics, for the topography, resoiling characteristics, and climate of the mined areas shall be used.
The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would utilize appropriate local, native species for revegetation.
C. Section 3703: Performance Standards for Wildlife Habitat. Wildlife and wildlife habitat shall be protected in accordance with the following standards:
(a) Rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the California Department of Fish and Game, (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, sections 670.2 - 670.5) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) or species of special concern as listed by the California Department of Fish and Game in the Special Animals List, Natural Diversity Data Base, and their respective habitat, shall be conserved as prescribed by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq., and the California Endangered Species Act, Fish File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
11 and Game Code section 2050 et seq. If avoidance cannot be achieved through the available alternatives, mitigation shall be proposed in accordance with the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq., and the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.
(b) Wildlife habitat shall be established on disturbed land in a condition at least as good as that which existed before the lands were disturbed by surface mining operations, unless the proposed end use precludes its use as wildlife habitat or the approved reclamation plan establishes a different habitat type than that which existed prior to mining.
(c) Wetland habitat shall be avoided. Any wetland habitat impacted as a consequence of surface mining operations shall be mitigated at a minimum of one to one ratio for wetland habitat acreage and wetland habitat value.
The Reduced Fill Alternative has considered the presence of rare, threatened or endangered species and species of special concern. It is not possible to entirely avoid wildlife habitat and wetlands areas utilized by the identified species that have the potential to be present on the Project site. However, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, proposes to restore affected wetlands in excess of 1:1 replacement ratio, and would create 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new
0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond. Revegetation with appropriate local and native species will also help to restore appropriate wildlife habitat on the Project site.
D. Section 3704: Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability, and Recontouring. Backfilling, regrading, slope stabilization, and recontouring shall conform with the following standards:
(a) Where backfilling is proposed for urban uses (e.g., roads, building sites, or other improvements sensitive to settlement), the fill material shall be compacted in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials and as adopted by the lead agency, the local grading ordinance, or other methods approved by the lead agency as appropriate for the approved end use.
(b) Where backfilling is required for resource conservation purposes (e.g., agriculture, fish and wildlife habitat, and wildland conservation), fill material shall be backfilled to the standards required for the resource conservation use involved. (c) Piles or dumps of mining waste shall be stockpiled in such a manner as to facilitate phased reclamation. They shall be segregated from topsoil and topsoil substitutes or growth media salvaged for use in reclamation. (d) Final reclaimed fill slopes, including permanent piles or dumps of mine waste rock and overburden, shall not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), except when sitespecific geologic and engineering analysis demonstrate that the proposed final slope will have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use, and when the proposed final slope can be successfully revegetated.
(e) At closure, all fill slopes, including permanent piles or dumps of mine waste and overburden, shall conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use.
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
12 (f) Cut slopes, including final highwalls and quarry faces, shall have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use and conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use. (g) Permanent placement of piles or dumps of mining waste and overburden shall not occur within wetlands unless mitigation acceptable to the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands, which may include the lead agency, has been proposed to offset wetland impacts and/or losses.
The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would backfill slope areas in accordance with the performance standards upon peer review of recommendations in an updated geotechnical report required for the scope of work, as conditioned.
All proposed final reclaimed fill slopes shall equal to or less than 2:1 slope. (2) The reclamation plan has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's environmental review guidelines, and all significant adverse impacts from reclamation of the surface mining operations are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft EIR was prepared in February 2022 pursuant to CEQA that included an analysis of the Reduced Fill Alternative. All significant impacts associated with the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible upon adoption and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the Final EIR. No environmental impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
(3) The land and/or resources such as water bodies to be reclaimed will be restored to a condition that is compatible with, and blends with, the surrounding natural environment, topography, and other resources, to the maximum extent feasible.
The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, includes the following objectives related to the natural surrounding environmental, topography, and other resources:
• Minimize grading to the maximum extent practicable in a manner that is consistent with the other objectives and maintains an average 2:1 slope on Project site. • Mitigate and restore prior physical disturbances resulting from past quarrying activity on the Project site.
• Provide for erosion control measures, land stewardship and maintenance to reduce sediment transport from the Project site into Calera Creek (which drains into the Pacific Ocean) in order to improve the creek’s water quality.
• Reclaim the Project site for end use, in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the 2040 General Plan while maintaining the views of the Pacific Ocean with
(4) The reclamation plan will restore the mined lands to a usable condition that is readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the general plan, local coastal land use plan, California Coastal Act, and Zoning Code.
The Reduced Fill Alternative was prepared pursuant to SMARA and the City of Pacifica Surface Mining and Reclamation regulations (PMC Title 9, Chapter 2). As conditioned, the Reduced Fill Alternative will initiate reclamation concurrently with a specific planning process to facilitate end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan and consistent with File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
13 SMARA standards. The reclamation, as conditioned, is necessary to achieve the requirements of this finding because the existing conditions on the Project site are not suitable for its intended use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. (5) Comments from the State Department of Conservation have been received and reviewed. A written response to these comments has been prepared and forwarded to the State Department of Conservation.
As noted above, the October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan incorporated the revisions requested by Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR), the agency responsible for reclamation plan review in the Department of Conservation. These revisions remain unchanged in the Reduced Fill Alternative that was provided to DMR in August 2024.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Variance PV-531-22:
(1) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
The Rockaway Quarry is the only quarry in the City of Pacifica known to staff that has not completed the reclamation required following its closure. Therefore, the Project site is subject to the special circumstance of being an unreclaimed quarry. Another special circumstance applicable to the Project site is that the HPD overlay district has been applied to the property. Some of the stated purposes of the HPD overly district in PMC section 9-
4.2252 are intentions to preserve natural terrain and topographic features. However, the Project site is a former quarry which has oversteep hillsides resulting from past mining activity which in turn results in artificially steep contours and lower allowable HPD coverage. Lastly, as explained in this staff report, another special circumstance for the Reduced Fill Alternative is that reclamation of the former quarry is required by state law, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, which is incorporated in PMC Title 9, Chapter 2 by reference. Therefore, reclamation of the former quarry is required.
Among the HPD overlay district’s stated purposes in PMC Section 9-4.2252 is to regulate new development to preserve natural hillside topography. However, while the Reduced Fill Alternative would facilitate future development of the site, it does not contemplate development as part of the reclamation effort. Therefore, the Reduced Fill Alternative is not development as contemplated in the HPD overlay district standards (such as buildings, roads, and utilities).
Based on the HPD’s orientation towards regulating new development, the formula for allowable HPD coverage in PMC section 9-4.2257 is not designed to address a quarry reclamation project. The extent of grading required for a typical development project would generally be considerably less than the extensive grading required to reclaim the former quarry that is the subject of the Reduced Fill Alternative. Therefore, the formula to calculate coverage allowed within the HPD overlay district in PMC Section 9-4.2257 is not designed or intended to regulate the extent of grading required for quarry reclamation.
As a result, the amount of allowed coverage under the HPD regulations is insufficient to accomplish reclamation of the former quarry site. Also, as noted above, the HPD coverage formula in PMC Section 9-4.2257 is driven primarily by site area and average slope of a File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
14 site. When this is applied to a former quarry with slopes that are oversteep due to past mining activity, the result is significantly less allowable coverage than a non-quarry site.
Thus, in light of the types of development that the HPD regulations seek to regulate, and the assumptions of the type of development that led to the mathematical formula for calculating allowable HPD coverage, application of the HPD coverage formula to the Project site would deprive the property of privileges under the HPD regulations that would be enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, and would deprive the property owner of the opportunity to complete quarry reclamation as required by state law and the PMC.
In terms of other property in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification (currently, C-3X/HPD/CZ), there are no other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. However, as it pertains to the HPD overlay district that is directly at issue with this variance, there are several properties to the north and to the east across Highway 1 that are zoned with the HPD overlay district as shown in Attachment B to the staff report.
The circumstances surrounding each of these other properties can be distinguished from the Reduced Fill Alternative: the Mori Point property to the north is not subject to the HPD regulations because it is owned by the federal government; and, the privately-owned parcels to the east are not former quarries and would require HPD coverage for purposes of new development, not quarry reclamation.
Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding that special circumstances are applicable to the Project site, including its topography that resulted from its former use as a quarry, and that the strict provisions of the HPD coverage limits to the Quarry Parcel would prevent the Applicant from accomplishing legallyrequired reclamation of the former quarry site, which is a unique requirement applicable to the Project site that is not applicable to any other property in the vicinity that is located within the HPD overlay district.
(2) That the granting of such variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.
As more fully described in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that analyzed the Reduced Fill Alternative, no potentially significant environmental impacts would result from the it after imposition of required mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. These include but are not limited to impacts to slope stability, noise, air quality, and transportation, which have a direct relationship to public health, safety, and the general welfare. The grading that would be authorized by this variance would improve safety at the Project site by eliminating overly steep slopes, creating safer slopes ranging from 5:1 to 2:1 inclination, and establish formal trails for hiking as a replacement for unsafe informal trails. In addition, the reclamation of a former quarry is required by state law and the PMC, which are designed to minimize impacts to public health, safety, and the general welfare that result from past quarry operations.
Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding that the granting of the variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, would not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the Project site and the Reduced Fill Alternative will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the area.
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
15 (3) Where applicable, that the application is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
As more fully described above, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with Design Guidelines related to Hillside Development, specifically those related to slope stability and erosion; visual impact; and access difficulty. (4) If located in the Coastal Zone, that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Local Coastal Plan.
While located within the Coastal Zone, the Quarry Parcel and Eastern Parcel are located in an Area of Deferred Certification and are not included within the City of Pacifica’s Local Coastal Program. Therefore, the California Coastal Commission retains coastal development permit issuance authority on the Project site and this finding is not applicable to the proposed variance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Tree Permit TP-1-22:
(1) The condition of the tree, presence of disease, pest infestation, damage, public nuisance, risk, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and/or interference with utility services.
The Reduced Fill Alternative is intended to reclaim a former quarry. Reclamation of former quarries is uncommon in the City of Pacifica. Therefore, it is not a project type that was considered in the creation of the criteria for removal of protected trees in Ordinance No. 884-C.S. Typically, protected tree removal would be considered in light of proposed buildings and supporting utilities on a project site. In this instance, the major activity on the Project site is proposed grading to fill oversteep slopes and restore them to an approximate pre-mining condition. To that end, protected tree removal is necessary and justified in the case of the Reduced Fill Alternative wherever extensive grading must be performed to reclaim the Project site as required by SMARA and PMC Title 9, Chapter 2.
Significant grading of the type proposed with the Reduced Fill Alternative would potentially bury entire trees if not removed where the grading is proposed to be the deepest.
The presence of buried trees could destabilize the final graded slopes which necessitates tree removal to preserve public health and safety by ensuring stable slopes following reclamation. In other cases where grading may not fully bury the protected trees, even small quantities of grading in the immediate vicinity of a tree can have deleterious effects.
In those cases, tree removal and replacement is advisable for long-term health of the planted trees.
(2) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.
Reclamation of the Project site, which is a former quarry, is required pursuant to SMARA, which is incorporated by reference in PMC Title 9, Chapter 2. The reclamation must ensure the site results in a condition which is “readily adaptable for alternative land uses and create[s] no danger to public health or safety.” Thus, as an unreclaimed former quarry, the Project site currently cannot be utilized for any non-quarry land use. Accordingly, the protected tree removal is necessary to allow the reclamation to occur so that an economically viable use of the Project site can be considered by the City in the future in accordance with the General Plan.
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
16 (3) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it.
The October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan included a geotechnical report that evaluated slope stability titled “Geotechnical Investigation Rockaway Quarry Reclamation, Pacifica, California”, dated December 10, 2018, prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. The report, which was peer reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, ENGEO Incorporated, concluded that the proposed quarry reclamation plan could be constructed safely on the site, subject to the recommendations in the report, including removal of the protected trees.
The Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Reclamation Plan is geotechnically feasible, based on the Applicant provided Preliminary Concept Plan, and Geotechnical Report. In that the Reduced Fill Alternative does not affect tree removal, it does not affect this finding. (4) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.
As noted above, removal of the protected trees would improve public health, safety, and welfare of the area and the City as a whole by allowing the reclamation of the quarry that would eliminate overly steep, unsafe slopes by grading the Project site to slopes no more than 2:1 and constructing formal public access trails. The required replanting of replacement trees would eventually restore the scenic beauty associated with trees on the Project site. Removal of the relatively small number of protected trees in relation to the large size of the Project site would not result in adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, or historic value on the Project site or immediate surroundings.
(5) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support.
The Quarry Parcel is 47.13 acres. The very large size of the parcel will ensure that the 114 replacement trees required by Mitigation Measure 4.3-7(a) can be installed and maintained on the Project site in a healthy manner.
Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the criteria for approval of a tree removal permit to remove 25 protected trees have been met by the Reduced Fill Alternative.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A, and Mitigation and Reporting Program, as set forth in Exhibit B, 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) subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this Resolution, and adoption of the Legislative Enactments, to reclaim and restore the former Rockaway Quarry as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), incorporated by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”), on the former Rockaway Quarry, approximately 86-acre in area, located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150- 120 and 018-150-150).
* * * * *
File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
17 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of September 2024.
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Sue Vaterlous, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 4861-9645-5399 v1
EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact
Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036
4861-9645-5399 v1
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings are in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
Part A: Findings regarding the environmental review process and the contents of the Final EIR.
Part B: Findings regarding the significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative, and the mitigation measures for those impacts identified in the Final EIR and adopted as conditions of approval.
Part C: Findings regarding the reasonableness of the range of alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR.
Because there are no significant impacts of the Revised Project that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation and the Planning Commission is approving the Reduced Fill Alternative, whose impacts are less than the Revised Project, the Planning Commission need not adopt findings rejecting alternatives and the Planning Commission need not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Planning Commission certifies that these findings are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings, concerning the environmental issues identified and discussed in the Final EIR.
The Planning Commission adopts the findings and the statement in Parts A, B, and C for the Revised Project and Reduced Fill Alternative.
In addition to the findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures, Part D identifies the custodian and location of the record of proceedings, as required by CEQA.
Part A. Environmental Review Process
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
On September 2, 2020, the City issued a Notice of Preparation announcing the intended preparation of the Draft EIR and describing its proposed scope. The public review period for the Notice of Preparation complied with the required 30-day requirement, extending from September 2 until October 12, 2020. The City held a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR on September 16, 2020 for the purpose of informing the public and receiving comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be prepared for the Project. The scoping meeting was held online, via Zoom.
The City received seven comment letters during the comment period on the Notice of Preparation from public agencies and individuals, included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR.
A-2
Preparation of the EIR
The City completed the Draft EIR for the Project and, beginning on February 16, 2022, the City made the Draft EIR available for review and comment. A Notice of Availability was published and the period for receipt of comments on the Draft EIR remained open for 45 days. Copies of the Draft EIR document were made available at the Pacifica Planning Department, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California 94044, and on the City’s website at: www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/environmental_documents.
During the comment period, the City received 122 comment letters. The letters were authored by two State and local agencies, three organizations, and the remaining comment letters were received from interested individuals.
The Final EIR was completed and available to commenting public agencies on or before January 13, 2023.
The Final EIR contains all of the comments received during and immediately after the public comment period, together with written responses to significant environmental issues raised in those comments, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Although the Applicant revised the Project subsequent to preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs, the City’s CEQA consultant has evaluated the Applicant’s changes and determined they do not change the analysis and conclusions in the Draft and Final EIRs or require recirculation of the EIR.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to all comments raising significant environmental issues.
Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR, but before certification of the Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes A-3
insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard, which include the following:
1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project (or an alternative), but the Project's proponents decline to adopt it.
4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Having reviewed all the information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the Draft EIR. No new or substantial changes to the Draft EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the Draft EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, or additions to the Draft EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts, and do not include any new mitigation measures that would have a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required.
Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Revised Project In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative, the Planning Commission recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues. The Planning Commission acknowledges that it has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters, and reports regarding the Final EIR and its own experience and expertise in these environmental issues. The Planning Commission acknowledges that it has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, by the City’s consultants, and by staff, addressing those comments. The Planning Commission acknowledges that it has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Planning Commission A-4
acknowledges that in turn, this understanding has enabled the Planning Commission to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The Planning Commission accordingly certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR.
Part B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Planning Commission acknowledges that these findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the Planning Commission regarding the environmental impacts of the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative and the mitigation measures identified by the Final EIR and adopted by the Planning Commission as conditions of approval for the Reduced Fill Alternative.
The Planning Commission acknowledges that in making these findings, the Planning Commission has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and significance thresholds used in the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a judgment within the discretion of the Planning Commission; the significance thresholds used in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the EIR preparers and City staff; and the significance thresholds used in the EIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative.
In particular, the EIR relied on significance criteria for evaluating impacts that are tailored to this type of project. The criteria used in this EIR to determine whether an impact is or is not “significant” are based on (a) CEQA-stipulated “mandatory findings of significance” listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15065; (b) the relationship of the Project effect to the adopted policies, ordinances and standards of the City and of responsible agencies; and (c) commonly accepted practice and the professional judgment of the EIR authors and City staff.
Exhibit A attached to these findings and incorporated herein by reference summarizes the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about the Project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation. This exhibit does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, Exhibit A provides a summary description of each significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission, and states the Planning Commission’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Planning Commission ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, A-5
except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
The Planning Commission adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to these findings as Exhibit B to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Planning Commission acknowledges that in adopting these mitigation measures, the Planning Commission intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended for approval by the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from Exhibit B, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in Exhibit B fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the adopted mitigation measures are changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Fill Alternative which mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(f) was revised in response to recommendation made in a comment letter received by the City during the public review period. The revision improves the efficacy of the measure, and does not alter the analysis or conclusion presented in the EIR. Modifications were not made to any other mitigation measures in response to comments.
Part C. Alternatives
Summary of Discussion of Alternatives in the Final EIR
The Final EIR evaluates four potential alternatives to the Project and the Planning Commission is approving the Reduced Fill Alternative. The EIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in comparison with the Project and the relative ability of each alternative to satisfy project objectives.
Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the Planning Commission certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR. The Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Final EIR is incorporated in these findings by reference.
The Final EIR describes and evaluates in detail four alternatives to the Project. The Planning Commission acknowledges that as set forth in section B above, the Planning Commission has adopted mitigation measures that reduce all of the significant environmental effects of the Reduced Fill Alternative to a less-than-significant level.
A-6
Accordingly, CEQA does not require the Planning Commission to adopt findings rejecting the alternatives not being approved. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission acknowledges that the reasons for the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative instead of the remaining alternatives are presented below. The Planning Commission finds that the Reduced Fill Alternative would satisfy the Project Objectives, and the remaining alternatives are unable to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Planning Commission further finds that, on balance, none of the remaining alternatives has environmental advantages over the Reduced Fill Alternative that are sufficiently great to justify approval of such an alternative instead of the Reduced Fill Alternative, in light of each such alternative’s inability to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Reduced Fill Alternative. Accordingly, the Planning Commission determines to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative instead of approving one of the remaining alternatives.
Description of Project Objectives
The project objectives are:
• Protect Public Health and Safety: Create safe slopes in place of existing unsafe conditions in order to minimize potential danger to public health and safety.
• Minimize Grading: Minimize grading to the maximum extent practicable in a manner that is consistent with the other objectives and maintains an average 2:1 slope on project site.
• Safe Pedestrian and Emergency Vehicle Access: Provide for safe pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the project site based on Reclamation Plan elevations.
• Provide Dedicated Public Trails to Provide Safe Pedestrian Access:
Establish dedicated trails that allow safe public access through the project site between the Rockaway Beach commercial district and the Mori Point segment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in accordance with the Coastal Act.
• Restoration: Mitigate and restore prior physical disturbances resulting from past quarrying activity on the project site.
• Improved Water Quality: Provide for erosion control measures, land stewardship and maintenance to reduce sediment transport from the project site into Calera Creek (which drains into the Pacific Ocean) in order to improve the creek’s water quality.
• Discourage Illegal Trespassing: Reclaim the project site in a manner that provides secure and safe public access and use in lieu of the existing homeless encampments, vagrancy and threats to the potential public use which characterize the existing conditions on the project site due to the cessation of quarrying activities.
• Improved Scenic Corridor and Aesthetics: Restore the project site to prequarry conditions so that views of the Pacific Ocean are maintained in a manner supporting a future alternate use in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica General Plan.
A-7
• Self-sustaining: Reclaim the property such that additional maintenance or other management activities are not required.
• Meet All SMARA Standards: Reclaim the project site such that it meets all applicable SMARA standards after reclamation.
Discussion and Findings Relating to the Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR
Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR evaluates the following four alternatives, which are summarized below:
• Reduced Fill Alternative;
• No Project Alternative;
• Single Access Alternative;
and
• Open Trails Alternative.
Reduced Fill Alternative.
The Reduced Fill Alternative would implement the components of the Reclamation Plan, but with alterations to the project’s filling and grading components, due to a reduction in the amount of imported fill. Under the Reduced Fill Alternative, a reduction in fill that still meets SMARA requirements and slope stability would be used. While the reduced fill would alter the amount of fill within the Quarry Pit, the Alternative would still complete the remaining reclamation activities proposed under the Project, including the installation of new trails, improvements to existing trails, addition of hazard signs, regrading of loose soil, installation of new wetlands, installation of temporary and permanent culverts, and revegetation plan.
The Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Fill Alternative would generally achieve the Project’s objectives and would result in fewer impacts than the Project in several resource areas. However, impacts would be similar in the majority of resource areas, such as biological resources and hydrology and water quality. The Planning Commission approves this Alternative.
No Project Alternative.
Under CEQA, a “No-Project Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a project with the impacts of not proceeding with a project. A No-Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
A-8
The No Project Alternative is defined in the Draft EIR as the continuation of the existing conditions of the Project site, which is currently a side hill, open pit mine dominated by often steep slopes, non-native plant species, and informal accessways.
Because implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in the site remaining under current conditions, physical environmental impacts would not occur, and none of the project objectives would be met.
On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve any of the project objectives, and the Planning Commission rejects this Alternative.
Single Access Alternative.
The Single Access Alternative would include the development of a single access point at the SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection. Because a single access point at the SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection would serve as both ingress and egress to the project site, the project would no longer require the installation of the two temporary culverts. Without the installation of the culverts, the Alternative would result in a reduction in ground disturbance. However, the Alternative may also affect traffic safety by confining truck movements into the project site to an established intersection at the SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection rather than requiring trucks to decelerate while partially in the southbound travel lane and partially in a narrow shoulder to access the Old Quarry Road.
The Alternative would still be assumed to complete the project’s grading of slopes, installation of new trails, improvements to existing trails, addition of hazard signs, filling of the Quarry Pit, regrading of loose soil, installation of new wetlands, and revegetation.
However, the Alternative would not include the project’s replacement of a 12-inch culvert located near SR 1 along the access loop.
The Draft EIR determined that the Single Access Alternative would achieve only half of the Project’s objectives. The Alternative would result in similar or fewer impacts to most resource areas, but would result in greater impacts related to transportation and circulation relative to the Revised Project.
On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve a majority of the project objectives, and the Planning Commission rejects this Alternative.
Open Trails Alternative.
Under the Open Trails Alternative, the Project’s components in the Eastern Parcel would remain the same, but work in the Quarry Parcel, including the Project’s soil hauling, slope cuts, and grading components, would be implemented in two primary phases, such that temporary closures of the existing, on-site trails as a result of reclamation-related activities would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. The four sub-phases of the Project would instead be constrained to two primary phases for reclamation activities within the Quarry Parcel under this Alternative.
The Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Fill Alternative would generally achieve the Project’s objectives and would result in similar impacts to the Project in most A-9
resource areas. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to alleviate environmental impacts in most resource areas. The Planning Commission rejects this Alternative.
Findings Regarding Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The Planning Commission finds that the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most but not all of the project objectives. The Planning Commission finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the Planning Commission and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the City’s ability to achieve the project objectives.
Part D. Record of Proceedings
Various documents and other materials constitute the record upon which the Planning Commission bases these findings and the approvals contained herein. The location of these documents and materials is: Pacifica Planning Department, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California 94044.
* * * * * * * *
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
KAVITHA KUMAR
INTERIM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE
CITY OF PACIFICA
A-10
EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036
A-11
Exhibit C
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-001 Quarry Reclamation Plan (Reduced Fill Alternative) for the Former Rockaway Quarry on an approximately 86-acre site located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
City Council Meeting on September 23, 2024
Planning Division of the Planning Department
1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the quarry reclamation plan entitled “Reclamation Plan, Rockaway Quarry, Pacifica, CA”, dated February 14, 2022, and attached to Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 2023, as revised and supplemented by the Applicant’s submittal dated October 23, 2023, and further revised and supplemented by the Applicant’s submittal dated July 2, 2024, included by reference in the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 19, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.
2. The Applicant shall incorporate all applicable mitigation measures as detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) into the Reduced Fill Alternative revised project.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each Phase as detailed in Condition 9 below, the Applicant shall submit a deposit in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Director for ongoing mitigation monitoring and reporting as required in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in Exhibit B to this Resolution. Applicant shall replenish the deposit within 30 days of a request by the Community Development Director.
4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Phase 1 as detailed in Condition 9 below and/or building permit, the City Council of the City of Pacifica shall ordain Development Plan DP-86-22 and Rezoning RZ-210-22.
5. The City Council’s approval of the Development Permits shall take effect on and shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. For the purposes of this Resolution, “final determination” shall mean the effective date of the Ordinance approving Development Plan DP-86-22 and Rezoning RZ-210-22. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Community Development Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Community Development Director may administratively grant a single, one year extension provided, in the Community Development Director’s sole discretion, if the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one year extension.
In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the Project, the Community Development Director may toll expiration of the Development Permits during the pendency of such litigation.
A-12
6. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any grading for each Phase and/or building permit application.
7. Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction prior to issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit.
8. The Project shall not exceed 22.0 acres (54.45%) of Hillside Preservation District (HPD) “coverage” on the Quarry Parcel (APN 018-150-120) and 2.8 acres (7.16%) of HPD coverage on the Eastern Parcel (APN 018-150-150) under the provisions of PMC Section 9-4.2257 related to the Hillside Preservation District.
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.
A-13
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).
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 A-14
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.
15. All landscaping for revegetation and tree replacement shall be installed consistent with the final landscape plan prior to final inspection of the reclamation activities approved in the reclamation plan. Landscaping on the Project site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced, when necessary, as determined by the Community Development Director.
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:
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.
A-15
20. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for each Phase.
21. Upon approval of permit, Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The applicant’s obligation to indemnify under this condition shall continue for the duration of project, its construction, and any potential litigation whether the project is undertaken or not.
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department
22. Construction and grading for each Phase shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans.
23. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked, onto the public parking lot at the western terminus of Reina del Mar Avenue and Highway 1. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.
24. All recorded survey points, monuments, railroad spikes, pins, cross cuts on top of sidewalks and tags on top of culvert headwalls or end walls, whether within private property or public right-of-way, shall be protected and preserved. If survey point/s are altered, removed or destroyed, the Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the services of a licensed surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer to restore or replace the survey points and record the required map prior to occupancy of the first unit.
25. Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:
A. an accurate survey plan, showing:
1. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;
2. property lines labeled with bearings and distances;
A-16
3. edge of public right-of-way;
4. any easements on the subject property
B. a site plan, showing:
1. the whole width of right-of-way of Talbot Avenue, including existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, new pavement, driveway approach, sidewalk, curb & gutter, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any ground-mounted equipment, street monuments, any street markings and signage;
2. the slope of Talbot Avenue at the centerline;
3. adjacent driveways within 25’ of the property lines.
4. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10’ of the property lines.
C. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.
D. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
26. Applicant shall include a note on the grading permit plans for each Phase that says, “Any damage to improvements within the city right-of-way or to any private property, whether adjacent to subject property or not, that is determined by the City Engineer to have resulted from construction activities related to this project shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.”
27. Prior to approval of the building permit and/or grading permit for each Phase, Applicant shall provide an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer.
28. A City of Pacifica Encroachment Permit shall be obtained for all work undertaken in the public right-of-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City Standards, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or Caltrans Standard Specifications, Pacifica Municipal Code, Administrative Policies and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee and shall be completed prior issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Permit fees shall be determined per the current adopted fee schedule at the time of permit issuance.
*** END OF CONDITIONS ***