CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 September 23, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 23, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on September 23, 2024 at 6:11 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Kavitha Kumar, Interim CD Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting CD Dep.
Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep.
Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PR Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Anthony Shriver, Recreation Supervisor; Amber Shong, Recreation Supervisor; Lexi Macario, Recreation Coordinator; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Vaterlaus
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week: October 6 - 11, 2024 Mayor Vaterlaus read the proclamation honoring Fire Prevention Week.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 23, 2024
Fire Inspector Claire Shum accepted the proclamation on behalf of North County Fire Authority.
She reiterated that the theme for this Fire Prevention Week is smoke alarms, and make them work, including testing them every month and replacing them when they do not work.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this was a good opportunity to remind the public about SMC Alert and Genasys Protect (formerly known as Zonehaven).
Fire Inspector Shum stated that Zonehaven is now Genasys Protect and you can look up your address and get alerts for evacuation. She stated that you can also go to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) which has more information about Fire Prevention Week, as well as activities and resources for all ages.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked her for all that she and her colleagues do. She asked about the date and time for Fire Service Day.
Fire Inspector Shum stated that Fire Service Day is an open house at the fire stations in Pacifica, Daly City, and Brisbane. They will have activities and the public will be able to talk to firefighters to learn more. She stated that will be October 5 right before Fire Prevention Week.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for being here. She feels that we have been lucky the last few years as we have been able to cultivate relationships with our firefighters.
Councilmember Boles appreciated that we are focusing on smoke detectors, and she shared a personal story of when she was pregnant with her son and her daughter was about 3, they left the windows open when they went to bed and the wind blew a curtain over a Halogen light near the window, which started a fire in the living room that quickly spread smoke. She stated that her personal story made a difference to check the batteries.
Fire Inspector Shum agreed. She reminded them that fires happen quicker now without early warnings and it is important that they will flash over where everything the room is on fire within three minutes. When you are sleeping, it gives you time to get out of the house easily.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked the Fire Department for everything they have done. She stated that it is important to check batteries because a 10-year smoke detector may last less time.
Fire Inspector Shum added that the 10-year batteries are the manufactured date or it could still be on the shelf being sold but not when it was made. She suggested to check the date and also test.
B. Proclamation - Pacifica Family Fun Festival 40th Anniversary Mayor Vaterlaus read the proclamation honoring the 40th Anniversary of the Pacifica Family Fun Festival.
Acting PB&R Director Scott Leslie stated that we were very excited about this 40th annual Family Fun Festival and invited everyone to attend as part of the Fog Fest.
Dr. Bill Michaelis stated that a lot of people over 40 years that have been involved and he thanked all of them. He stated that we have lost a few but the spirit continues. He also invited everyone to come, including new citizens. He wanted to reaffirm the importance of family, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked what the age limit was to participate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated no limit.
Councilmember Boles thanked them and believes we need fun now as a whole city with the hard things we have been going through and she appreciated the work they do to make this happen.
Councilmember Bier echoed that. She thanked them for reminding them to have fun, as Dr.
Michaelis carries that with him. She thought it was nice to hear Former PB&R Commissioner Beck’s name. She thought this was a big part of her childhood and it is beautiful to continue coming together and grow.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was looking forward to Sunday as it will be fun. She thanked them for starting this 40 years ago and thanked staff and volunteers over the years.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this event has spanned the entirety of his life and has been foundational for himself and many Pacificans and he thanked them.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated her kids had a great time in the Family Fun Fest.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comment.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated she is proud of people who started that Family Fun Festival and was surprised it has been for 40 years. She thanked Pacifica for letting us have this type of activity.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus brought it back to Council and asked if they wanted to remove or add anything to the consent calendar. Seeing no one, she opened public comments. There were no public comments on Consent items. Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments and brought it back to Council.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for (1) the July 8, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting and (2) the August 12, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 23, 2024
61-2022.
3. San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”
4. Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
5. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires & Associates for design and environmental engineering services related to the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement (Attachment 1) and Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 (Attachment 2) between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires & Associates for design and environmental engineering services for the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project to extend the term of the Agreement to September 30, 2028 and in the amount of $197,355 with a 10% contingency increasing the total budget authority to an amount not to exceed $900,000, and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related the amendments for design and environmental engineering services.
6. Direction to Pacifica Voting Delegate Regarding CalCities 2024 Annual Conference Resolution Packet
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to Pacifica's voting delegate to support one resolution to be considered by the League of California Cities (CalCities) at the 2024 CalCities Annual Conference to be held in Long Beach, October 16 - 18, 2024 - Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels as submitted by City of Glendora.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated this is the first time he has been to a Council meeting since it was remodeled and he appreciates that and all other upgraded city facilities and thanked Council for moving us forward in the right direction.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bier asked to do their Council Communications at the end.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed with her and, thus, Council Communications will be moved to the end of the meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 23, 2024
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse commented that this week is nationwide Stand Against Hate Week, and he referred to the posters in the chamber that shows Pacifica embraces the United Against Hate efforts and the United Against Hate week. He stated that we have developed Pacifica Stands United in Love, more proactive affirmative statements and take that commitment seriously. He stated that these posters are available at City Hall if anyone in the community would like to take one and it does not just apply to this week, but every week and every day.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Consideration of 1) Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP-179-22, Quarry Use Permit UP-71-16, Variance PV-531-22, and Tree Permit TP-1-22 (File No. 2016-001); and 2) Waive the First Reading and Introduce of Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the P-DX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
PROPOSED ACTION: 1. Adopt a Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP‐179‐22, Quarry Use Permit UP‐71‐16, Variance PV‐531‐22, and Tree Permit TP‐1‐22 (File No. 2016‐001); and
2. Waive the First Reading and Introduce Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the P-DX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if any Councilmembers have had any ex parte communications.
Councilmember Boles spoke to the property owner and numerous members of the public.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Bier spoke to members of the public.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer spoke to members of the public.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that City Council would mention having conversations with the public, as well as the project applicant, but do not need to talk specifically about what was said.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he spoke to Paul Heule, Matt Larson, members of the trade union, Dept. of DMR, Division of Mining Reclamation, and members of the public.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she spoke to Matt Larson and members of the public.
Interim Community Development Director Kumar and Acting Community Development Dep.
Director Cervantes presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he has watched the Planning Commission hearings and seen the amount of work staff has put into this. He stated that there is no shortage of care that has been put into all these considerations. He stated that there were some emails implying that Council had a choice at any step in this process in terms of whether or not we process the application or hear the appeals. He asked the City Attorney if we are able to summarily deny hearing an application.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we have both state-mandated and locally mandated in our Municipal Code requirements for appeals of Planning Commission decisions and there are due process rights that the applicant is afforded and Council is required to follow the procedures in the Municipal Code to assure that the applicant’s due process are met. In conjunction with those rights, the applicant has the right to be heard in front of the appeal body, which in this case is Council, to exhaust their administrative remedies because they cannot go straight from a Planning Commission denial without going through Council to get a final determination. There is no final determination on this project at this time until Council acts on it.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that there were rules and laws that were put into place stating that these applications have to be addressed and Council is required to hear the appeal.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked about process. She asked if we are going to hear and rule on the appeals and then review the project in detail.
City Attorney Kenyon stated at this point is the opportunity for Council to ask questions of staff and staff will move to the presentations, first by Appellant One and followed by Appellant Two.
Following the presentations, there will be public comments, and if any of the appellants reserve time for rebuttal, they will be able to exercise their rebuttal time. Then, Council would close the public hearing with no more testimony from the appellant or the public. It would revert to Council for deliberation. In those deliberations, Council will be deliberating on the appeals as well as the specific use permit approval requested by the applicant.
Councilmember Boles thought we are reviewing both the 874,000 cubic yard plan and the 583,000 cubic yard plan that Council received solely the preliminary grading plan for.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she was correct, adding that the application contains the project City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 23, 2024
material related to the 874,000 cubic yard plan. The staff and applicant proposal is a reduced fill alternative that arises out of the EIR process which allows for review of a reduced fill alternative. She stated that the reduced fill alternative has been provided further clarity with both the applicant’s submittal of a 583,000 cubic yard plan, although without a grading plan associated with it, and also further revised through conditions of approval that staff went through tonight’s presentation on how to further refine the reduced fill alternative. Council is starting with the 874,000 cubic yard plan and then looking at how it has been revised pursuant to the reduced fill alternative as described.
Councilmember Boles asked if the 874,000 cubic yard plan and the 583,000 cubic yard plan been submitted to SMARA and if they have given official notification response.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the most recent submittals that the applicant provided in July were distributed to our reviewers at DMR and they did not provide official comment on that submittal from this summer; DMR previously provided comments and have no additional comments. They said, as long as the applicant addresses the previous comments they provided, that is sufficient.
Councilmember Boles asked if staff can explain what document Council is supposed to review for the Specific Plan, Development Plan, Quarry permit, variant tree permit, etc. to make the findings, as well as the location of the documents.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, with all development applications in Pacifica, we do not typically have documents designated as specific plan or development plan applications. The combination of project plans and materials are the different permit approvals that the city will act on, as noted in Condition of Approval No. 1 in the resolution on packet page 247.
Councilmember Boles stated, as we are looking at environmental impacts of the project, she thinks we have an obligation to ensure that the project minimizes those impacts in terms of CEQA review. As the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission with the various plans (over 1 million cubic yard fill; the 874,000 cubic yard; and the 583,000 cubic yard now) there might be further reduction as Council considers a specific plan. She concluded that this is Council’s obligation to make sure we are doing the least environmentally damaging project.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the city’s obligation under CEQA is to review the project for any environmental impact and EIR Consultant Ron Stinson has performed that exercise. She stated that, to the extent Council wants additional mitigation measures adopted as part as any approval, that can happen as well. She stated that the environmental document itself has been analyzed, prepared, and submitted for certification by staff and the city’s environmental consultant. Staff concurs that the environmental document as prepared and presented to Council is a legally adequate final EIR, but Council can add additional conditions or mitigation measures to reduce even further environmental impacts.
Councilmember Boles stated that there has been some public comment about a stable project description and asked if City Attorney sees the current form as a stable project under CEQA.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the original project description was for the plan that included almost 1 million cubic yards of imported soil. With the change to the 874,000 cubic yard plan, a revised reclamation plan was studied, which also revised the project description.
That was analyzed and presented to the Planning Commission earlier this year. She stated the 874,000 cubic yards of imported soil planned is the project description in the EIR. What has City Council Regular Meeting 8 September 23, 2024
been proposed and recommended in the resolution is an alternative that has been studied in the EIR, the reduced fill alternative, so the intent is not to update or revise the project description from the 874,000 cubic yard plan but to look at one of the alternatives that is in the EIR, as allowed by CEQA.
City Attorney Kenyon added Council is required to adopt an applicant’s proposal that was analyzed in the EIR. The EIR also analyzed a reduced alternative to less than significant impact. Council or Planning Commission, as any legislative body of the City, has the opportunity to pick that lesser significant impact alternative to reduce the impact. That is why there is no project description to reflect the 583,000 cubic yard fill and perhaps a lesser amount of fill because this project, if approved according to staff’s recommendation, would be approving an alternative to the applicant’s proposal which is done regularly by local agencies for the reasons indicated.
Councilmember Bier stated that she does not understand the maps on packet page 207. She asked are there any renderings of the map.
Interim Director Kumar stated that staff reviewed the applicant’s presentation which included a few renderings and staff can find some from older presentations, if needed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed about the maps. She concluded that the project that was submitted is an 874,000 cubic yard fill project but there is the possibility that Council could approve the smaller amount of imported fill but there is no specific outline of that project. She asked what specifically staff has received from the applicant with plans regarding the 583,000 cubic yard fill plan.
Interim Director Kumar stated that we have one sheet of a preliminary grading plan that shows what they are intending to do with the 583,000 cubic yard fill plan, how they reduced from the 874,000 cubic yards to 583,000 cubic yards, where the grading is, and where they would be focusing their grading activity.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is not unusual and what it means is that the final grading plan would be reviewed by staff with our peer reviewers when that final grading plan does come in to assure that there is no more fill required than is absolutely necessary for the grading they are proposing and assure that it meets all the Conditions of Approval that Council has laid out.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, regarding the environmental analysis, if it was done on the 874,000 cubic yard fill plan.
Acting Director Kumar responded affirmatively.
City Attorney Kenyon thought that the EIR also included and analyzed a reduced fill alternative.
Raney Consultant Stinson stated that the draft EIR evaluated the larger project. As part of the evaluation, there were multiple alternatives to the proposed project, one being the reduced fill alternative, which is what has been submitted. The intent of that submittal is to be a more fleshed out version of what that alternative was described to be in the EIR. He stated that there was not a fill amount specified in the EIR, just reduced fill sufficient to meet the minimum standards of SMARA; it would essentially meet the project objectives while bringing in the least amount of fill without doing the engineering that has now been done.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 September 23, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it refers to previous plans and furthermore asked if that is appropriate to ask at this juncture.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it may not be appropriate to answer at this stage.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed to put it aside. She referred to mention of the amount of fill required to meet the minimum requirements of SMARA. She thought there have been plans submitted in the past that did not have fill involved and she asked if those plans were not submitted to SMARA for review.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that previous plans were classified as no fills but that was not accurate. Those plans from 1990 were for no-import fill and there was still fill associated with the sites; that fill came from onsite and involved taking some of the existing land forms, rating them down, grinding them down, and filling them in the quarry pit. There was still fill, just no imported fill.
Councilmember Boles stated that the 981,000 cubic yard fill plan was not just approved by the Council but also approved by SMARA and it is a valid option but she does not think a no-import fill option was analyzed in the EIR.
Mr. Stinson stated the alternative evaluation chapter included a number of alternatives that were considered but dismissed from further analysis, one of them being the no-fill. The no-fill option would require knocking back some of the slopes and would increase the area of disturbance and result in greater impacts to the biology in comparison to the proposed project. Thus, it was dismissed for those reasons.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought the 2017 plan was a no-fill plan and asked why that did not move forward, as she thought it seemed like an appropriate plan.
Mr. Stinson stated the requirements under CEQA for the alternative evaluation is to reduce the impacts as identified for the proposed project under each topic area; if there are significant impacts, the alternatives are intended to aim at reducing what those significant impacts would be. He stated that, for example, there is potentially a significant impact on biological resources and therefore many mitigation measures associated with biological impacts from the project. If the project was expanded beyond the area of disturbance as identified for the proposed project, there would be additional areas and additional habitats, etc. Under that one topic area, the impacts would be greater for the no-fill alternative as compared to the project.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked why SMARA has not come forward in the last 40 years to enforce the reclamation required of the City.
Mr. Stinson stated he does not know if he can speak to the why, but they analyzed the application put before them as required by CEQA.
City Attorney Kenyon added that the City has a legal obligation to process all applications that are submitted to the City.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how far that process went for the 2016 plan.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the 2016 plan was preliminary and was associated with the measure that went for a public vote and the 2016 reclamation plan assumed that the City Council Regular Meeting 10 September 23, 2024
site would be developed. Because the voter initiative was turned down, there was no further work on the 2016 reclamation plan.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the 2016 reclamation plan presumes there is a specific development and, when it was obviated that the specific development was not going forward, that plan was halted at that point. He asked if that is right.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated he was correct.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that plan was never submitted to DMR for review and we do not know that DMR felt that plan met SMARA obligations and the City did not review it for SMARA obligations, so there is no way of knowing if that 2016 plan would meet SMARA requirements.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in talking with DMR, it sounded like we had a plan in hand and actionable in 1983 and since then we have a plan in hand and actionable since 1998. He said the 1996 reclamation plan may have had slightly different cut and fill than the 1998 reclamation plan. His understanding from the DMR is that the 1998 plan we have in our hand to this day is something that was approved by the City, passed CEQA and SMARA, and DMR has reviewed with no issues. He asked why we have not proceeded with that plan.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated her understanding of the 1980 plan is that there are still permits that that plan would need to obtain, one being a Coastal Development Permit. She confirmed with Coastal Commission staff that the 1998 plan has not obtained a Coastal Development Permit through California Coastal Commission and there would still be additional actions that they would need to undertake before they could reclaim the site under that plan.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, to be clear, if they were to pass this version at this time in some form or another, if the next step to go to Coastal Commission.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded that he is correct, as there are still additional permits, one being Coastal Development Permit with the California Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in one version, it has already passed through Council and CEQA and is ready to go to Coastal Commission and in another Council deliberate on it before it goes to Coastal Commission.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated he was correct.
City Attorney Kenyon added that the 1998 plan was designed prior to the movement of Calera Creek and the plan, at a minimum, would need to be amended to address the implications including the biological implications of that plan now that the creek has entirely moved. She stated that is a practical issue that they are going to have to address with the 1998 plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked the CEQA consultant Mr. Stinson what the biological implications would be. She asked, in his profession, would he take a plan created and evaluated under CEQA in 1998 and move those findings forward and is it general practice to do that.
Mr. Stinson stated that, with project approvals that old, it would certainly need to be reviewed and considered for what change in conditions are on the site. He clarified that they reviewed the project that is now before them and did not review that previous one.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that the impacts to the disturbed soil on the hilltop are perhaps more. The 874,000 cubic yard fill plan has huge potential impacts because of the imported soil that the plan did not have. She asked if that is still a choice that Council should be able to make. She had concerns about the imported soil and just being able to limit imported soil could be a huge benefit if we could evaluate that.
Mr. Stinson explained, regarding the requirements under CEQA for the alternatives analysis, when identifying what the alternatives are, you look at the significant impacts and which ones can you reduce through the alternative, but the other side is that the alternatives need to meet most of the project objectives. The no-fill does not meet a couple of the project objectives as well as potentially increasing some of those impact areas.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can clarify which project objectives are not met.
Mr. Stinson stated objectives 2 and 8.
Councilmember Boles asked if he could read those.
Mr. Stinson stated he would pull them up.
Councilmember Boles also asked about the Coastal Commission’s review and understanding that this is an area of deferred certification. She stated that there was an email on July 30 from the Coastal Commission that says, “Note that the zoning designation for the quarry referenced in the submittal references the General Plan. This is not certified zoning language by the Coastal Commission and unless the new LCLUP is certified by the Coastal Commission, the proposed zoning does not apply yet.” She asked how that factors in what we are doing today.
She stated there was another email from the Coastal Commission from June 2, 2023, that said that the zoning change to PD that is required for HPD would also need to be approved in a LCP amendment. She was not sure if that was addressed in the staff report either.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the zoning designation is certified by the California Coastal Commission because our zoning map is certified. What they are referring to is the General Plan designation which the City has outlined in the 2040 General Plan. The 1980 LCLUP and the 1980 General Plan do not have a designated land use designation for the site, as it is called a special area, and without having specific land use designation, the City staff has referred to the only land use designation that we have, which is the 2040 General Plan.
Councilmember Boles referred to the change for the HPD variance to PD and the Coastal Commission saying that it cannot be done without an LCP amendment, and she asked if that is something that we can vote on now.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that her understanding is that because, the area is a deferred area, the Coastal Commission would have to approve the land use to rezone as part of the Coastal Development Permit application that they are reviewing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is the same as what we are doing with the EIR if Council were to certify the EIR. She stated that the certification of the EIR does not make the EIR valid because that certification still needs to be certified by the Coastal Commission before that action can become final.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if we still have an obligation to review the project to the Coastal Act requirements.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no, as our obligation is under our HPD zoning.
Mr. Stinson read the two objectives in response to Councilmember Boles’ previous question:
The first one is the reduction in grading because the project is essentially laying soil and grading, which is taken to mean that the area where grading will occur is going to be limited to this location. The extent of additional grading of native soils to knock back all of the slopes to meet SMARA standards would be extensive.
Councilmember Boles stated we do not know how extensive and asked if it would not meet the project objectives because the project objectives want to have a lot of grading.
Mr. Stinson stated that the project objective was to minimize the grading but within that footprint and not to expand the area of the mine pit. He stated that Objective No. 8 is to reclaim the quarry to pre-mining conditions for SMARA.
Councilmember Boles stated that we have seen pictures from the Historical Society of what the hill used to look like with minimal mining from the 1920s. Therefore, none of these applications are restoring this to pre-mining condition. She asked if he has looked at those images.
Mr. Stinson stated, if you are knocking back the elevation of the pre-mining hill, there is a certain elevation if you have to knock that down and it would not be pre-mining conditions; to bring in soil and build back up to match that previous contour is what that objective is trying to get at.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she has a question regarding process. There are two appellants and they both get to speak now for ten minutes.
City Attorney Kenyon answered affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus said the applicant is an appellant who gets to speak later.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is his opportunity to speak.
Mayor Vaterlaus understood that he does not have ten minutes later.
City Attorney Kenyon stated any appellant gets ten minutes now and any appellant can choose to have three minutes later for rebuttal. The initial presentation is only ten minutes long. Then, if they want to take a rebuttal after hearing all the rest of public comment, they have three minutes for that rebuttal. She stated the appeal went one first.
Mayor Vaterlaus called appellant Mr. Dan Stegink up to the podium.
Dan Stegink made a request to Mayor Vaterlaus to recuse herself from the vote and stated that Council had not adequately disclosed ex parte communications.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is not the case. She stated, based on what she read in terms of the recusal, this is unrelated to any Fair Political Practices Commission conflict of interest. It relates to a relationship, if one even exists, and if we assume it does exist, that does not relate to a councilmember’s immediate family. The mayor may state that for the record.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she does not know the Gilmartins at all.
Mr. Stegink raised an objection to the mayor’s statement.
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Mr. Stegink began his appeal testimony. He raised issues with the agenda not containing a complete reclamation plan or a definable project plan, in addition to its eligibility factors for EIR or CEQA. He stated that the Rockaway Quarry meets all criteria under the National Register of Historic Places to be designated a historic site and referenced Native American artifacts found in the Calera Creek Water Treatment Plant construction in 1996-97. He also provided information on the order debarring William Gilmartin III, ProVen Management Inc., and Bayland Soil Processing LLC from doing business with the City and County of San Francisco and expressed frustration at the fact that William Gilmartin III was bribing public officials while concurrently applying to Pacifica’s Planning Department, adding that Pacifica and San Francisco have many tiers of influence that overlap. He raised issues regarding sites from the 2015 reclamation plan that had since disappeared with climate change, in addition to project maps that do not reflect the existing conditions and risks at these sites. He also questioned the inspection of the mining site by the applicant, DMR, and City officials. He stated that the applicant has failed to accurately represent the extent that quarry has been reclaimed by wildlife and incorrectly presents documented presence of endangered species. He urged the City Council to prevent corrupt businesses from doing work in Pacifica. He also referenced several letters between staff indicating the mine was deemed stable with no identified public health and safety issues and SMARA saying any imported fill is beyond their purview. He stated that they must not approve this project as Pacifica is not a dump.
Mayor Vaterlaus called the next appellant up to the podium.
Alicia Guerra from Buchalter filed the appeal on behalf The Preserve @ Pacifica and Bayland Soil Pacifica, LLC. She stated that they filed this appeal because the Planning Commission denied the project with no options left for the applicant besides going forward with the 870,000 cubic yard fill project. As a result of the community’s response to the imported fill, they proposed to take the reduced fill alternative as Mr. Stinson indicated is included in the CEQA document and use that as a framework to address their concerns, propose further mitigation, propose the lessening of imported fill, and further reduce impacts that were already determined to be less than significant. She stated that that is allowed under CEQA and they are following requirements by law. They cannot restore it in the way that it was in pre-mining condition because the conditions on the property have changed because the Coastal Commission has issued Coastal Development Permits for the changes to Calera Creek and the wastewater treatment plant. She stated that Mr. Gurnsey will talk about next steps with respect to this appeal should the project be denied, and then Mr. Heule will talk about trying to use the reduced fill alternative as a way of facilitating planning.
Adam Gurnsey stated he is a mining attorney from Sacramento, California, and has been practicing SMARA for the last 12 years, representing both private mining operators and counties across the state. He stated that state law requires that the applicant reclaim this quarry into a safe and stable condition, consistent with SMARA and the City’s local Surface Mining Ordinance. He stated that condition does not exist today, especially with the slopes it is not stable as a matter of law and a matter of practice. He stated it is their client’s obligation and right to reclaim that site consistent with state law. Referring to the Reclamation Plan history, City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 23, 2024
there was an original reclaim application that included 970,000 cubic yards of imported fill. As a result of conversations during the first Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to reduce that to 874,000 cubic yards of fill and, based on engineering analysis, that is the absolute minimum of fill required to leave that slope in a 2-1 horizontal to vertical slope configuration, which is a prescriptive SMARA requirement. Any less and those slopes would not be consistent with SMARA. Following the workshop group, there was a submittal on July 2 where the applicant came up with a voluntary condition whereby they would phase their reclamation over the course of four years, filling 583,000 cubic yards, but during that time, it was understood that the applicant would work with the City to see if there was some end use other than open space that the City could approve which would allow less fill to leave those slopes stable. He clarified that the 874,000 cubic yards of fill reclamation plan is what is being applied for, and even if Council were inclined to approve the reduced phase approach, it is just phasing; if there were no ultimate agreement on future development, the applicant would be required to import the remainder of that fill to leave the slopes stable from a SMARA perspective. He stated that the reclamation plan that has been before the City is legally compliant with SMARA, has been reviewed by DMR, and analyzed by a well-prepared CEQA document from Raney. The City is obligated, when presented with a legally SMARA-compliant reclamation plan, to approve it. If the City does not approve it, there are appellate remedies that are available to the applicant that takes that decision out of the City’s hands. He wants to address one last comment that came in a letter written towards the end of the comment period last week that suggested that, if there was an appeal to the State Mining and Geology Board, the State Mining and Geology Board could not approve it because they cannot certify a CEQA document. He stated that is false, as the State Mining and Geology Board is a lead agency for a variety of surface mining lead agencies across the state and they can approve CEQA documents, certified EIRs and approve reclamation. He stated that there is no way to avoid approval simply by declining to certify the EIR. He then turned it over to Mr. Heule.
Paul Heule, the property owner, stated this process has been going on for nearly 30 years and he is here to ask to approve a state-mandated reclamation plan and thereby create an accessible open space for the community. He ended with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” Change will happen at the quarry in Pacifica and he hopes that it will be done in an affirmative vote on the alternative proposed by City staff.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Councilmembers have any questions for the appellants.
Councilmember Bier stated that we need to be kind and considerate to everyone in this space.
Councilmember Boles asked staff to confirm, if we do not go through this specific plan, the project would go back to the 874,000 cubic yard fill, not the 583,000 cubic yard fill.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they will appeal the 874,000 cubic yard fill reclamation plan if Council denies their appeal at this time or in the future.
Councilmember Boles asked what happens if we approve the 583,000 cubic yard fill but the specific plan does not work out and can they go back to the 874,000 cubic yard fill at that time.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that there is a Condition of Approval in the proposed regulations, Condition No. 9, that if there is no specific plan, then it would go up to the 583,000 cubic yard fill which is the maximum that they are recommending.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that the appellant has agreed to that.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that they proposed that and agreed to it.
Mr. Gurnsey stated that the reduced fill was a proposal as an accommodation. There needs to be a minimum of the 874,000 cubic yards to have legally compliant SMARA slopes. The accommodation is a 4-year phase within which there was to be discussions with the City regarding an end use that is different than the proposed open space. If there was an agreement reached and the City approved development, and that development allowed them to reduce fill, perhaps they could go under the 874,000 cubic yard fill. The phased alternative for those four years was to provide enough time for the parties to engage in that discussion. If there is no development approved at the end of the day, as a matter of law to have stable slopes, they need the 874,000 cubic yards. He stated there is no world where 583,000 cubic yards allows them to reclaim the site consistent with SMARA.
City Attorney Kenyon understands what the applicant attorney is saying, but the reality is, if Council upholds the appeal and approves the reclamation plan along with the conditions that staff has proposed, the ultimate fill that will be allowed on the property would be 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill. She stated that is the City’s condition that we are imposing on the project.
She knows that is not what the applicant proposed, but we have revised the applicant’s proposal with regard to the 583,000 cubic yards.
Councilmember Boles stated, even if we approve the 583,000 cubic yard fill plan, they could still appeal the 870,000 cubic yard fill plan to SMARA.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they could.
Councilmember Boles stated the site is allowed to have visitor-serving commercial by right.
Therefore, technically, if the specific plan process does not go through for whatever reason, they could still bring forth an application for a hotel and other things that would not necessarily need a specific plan and would essentially reduce the grading quantity.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively, adding that any grading that they propose would be reviewed by staff and our peer review geotechnical consultant to assure that there was not more grading than was needed for the proposed development. Whether it is existing uses allowed into our zoning or if a formal specific plan process is approved in the future, it would be whatever is proposed in that specific plan.
Councilmember Boles thought that regarding conservation, if they decide to land bank it but still need to reclaim it, they need the 874,000 cubic yard fill.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively, as that is their position.
Councilmember Boles asked about SMARA’s powers in terms of being a lead agency and certifying CEQA. She asked to confirm what they can and cannot do.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if this application were appealed to SMGB, they would have the authority to approve a reclamation plan but would not have the authority to certify the Environmental Impact Report, as that would have to be remanded back to the city to give direction to the city on how they should approve the reclamation plan and then to simultaneously do the environmental work necessary to approve that reclamation plan.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 23, 2024
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added that there are City approvals, including rezoning and legislative approvals, that are required in order to move forward with the reclamation plan. The SMGB does not have authority over the City for the rezoning and other permits aside from the reclamation plan.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comment.
Owen Brizgys, Pacifica, stated the proposal was a class 3 landfill, suggested an alternative corporate entity to transport the imported soil, expressed concerns about the environmental impact of the project, and stated that the SMARA citations from the appellant were incorrect.
Richie Beltran, Pacifica, stated he was a descendant of the Ramaytush ancestors and he stated that the applicant was using the incidents at the quarry to further themselves financially.
He shared his appreciation the City’s Land Acknowledgment and his thoughts on the right thing for the city to do to honor the Ramaytush people.
Pavin Johnson, Oakland, stated he is a citizen of the Quapaw nation of Oklahoma and an active member of the Bay Area indigenous community. He shared the concerns of the Ramaytush community on this project as well as the health hazards of the project and asked them to vote against filling the quarry.
Lois Marshall-Ward, Pacifica, stated she is strongly against the quarry project, specifically regarding traffic and the environmental impacts.
Linda Peebles, Pacifica, stated her family is opposed to the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan and expressed concerns about the environmental, health, safety, traffic, and noise issues.
She also questioned the soil quality to brought in by the applicant.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the use of tragic incidents at the quarry in putting forth this project and stated in his conversations with DMR that the safety standard was to make the quarry safe for recreational purposes. He raised issue with the applicant’s soil testing processes and delivery schedule and timeline and the environmental impacts from this.
Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated she is a documented Ramaytush descendent of the Timigtac along Calera Creek, and she expressed her opposition to any fill in the quarry and her concerns about trusting the owner and the company’s history of convictions from San Francisco. She emphasized environmental impacts as a result of the project. She also shared experiences from other jurisdictions from her land use consultations.
Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, stated she stands with the community and urges Council not to adopt the resolution. She stated the Planning Commission rejected the project, expressed concerns with the soil import, and asked who benefits from this project.
Charlie Schwab, Pacifica, asked what rigorous monitoring means, where the soil is coming from, how the applicant will control trucks for traffic, and what dangers there are in the quarry.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, hoped Council respects the Planning Commission’s decision and shared his thoughts on a future conservation or recreational possibility for the site.
Emil Cohan, Pacifica, shared his experience on a project he is working on and what he had to City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 23, 2024
do to bring soil to Ox Mountain and asked why the applicant does not have to do that.
Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated the Planning Commission rejected this plan and expressed issues regarding health and traffic from the project. He also highlighted that DMR is only concerned with safety, not restoration via fill.
Rich Campbell, Pacifica, stated the City will not lose local control with DMR taking over if Council denies the project. He shared documented information that limits the state board’s jurisdiction to hear appeals from the City the appeal is clear on the record that the City abides by its own quarry code and its own reclamation plans and shared his reasons Council can deny this project under Pacifica’s Municipal Code.
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that SMARA law is to do what is best for the community and this plan is terrible for the community and is against the intent of SMARA law. He urged Council to reject this plan.
George Yatraks, Pacifica, appreciated invoking Dr. King and shared a counter quote from Vincent Van Gogh, who said, “The sadness will last forever.” He pointed out the inadequate CEQA which makes the EIR insufficient.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that every person she canvassed opposes this plan and asked Council to deny the project. She asked to look into a no-fill alternative for the quarry.
Danielle Spandau, Pacifica, shared her concerns on what has been proposed on this land.
She loves her house and this town and she does not want it to change.
Curt Kiest, Pacifica, reinforced the thought that the quarry is private property and the owner has the right to develop it, but within the guidelines, etc., when he bought it. He shared his concerns on the proposed plans and other legal issues by involved participants. He encouraged Council to say no to this proposal.
David Goodman, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the position of the applicant and questioned why this is not being taken to a vote. He shared confusion regarding the process.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, referred to Planning Commission’s decision to deny approval of the proposed quarry reclamation by a 5-0 vote and she stated it is Council’s turn to do the same.
Laurie Goldberg, Pacifica, questioned what all the people involved in this plan have to do with Pacifica and whether they have bought off some people in Pacifica. She shared her disagreement with the plan, the consequences of which the community would have to live with.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated that there have been several misrepresentations or misstatements made tonight. She stated the owner submitted another plan in May 2017 for a low or no imported project and the owner did not submit the 874,000 cubic yard fill plan to DMR.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated Council received letters from an attorney representing CPUP, Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan, which he co-founded, but he is speaking as an individual. The attorney’s letters point out many reasons for Council not proceeding with the approval of the project. He also submitted a letter for findings that the EIR is not adequate, alongside other public comments pushing Council to deny this project.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 23, 2024
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed frustrations with the process. He also shared that the timeline would be longer than 4 years. He urged Council to deny the plan.
Ruby Pleasure, Pacifica, stated she is concerned about the latest quarry proposal and voiced her strong opposition to the project regarding health and safety, access to Pacifica, and pollution and contamination.
Deborah Nagle-Burks, Pacifica, voiced her strong opposition to the latest quarry proposal and shared her concerns about the project regarding health and safety and environmental impacts.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, had an interesting conversation with a manager at DMR, who shared the DMR is an oversight agency, not regulatory, and SMARA gives state review authority but is not prescriptive, as there are many ways to reclaim the site, and the denial must be related to SMARA to be heard by the SMGB. She stated this should be reclassified to a land fill project.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, finds this a ridiculous proposal and mentioned all his specific concerns, including health, traffic, and safety issues on the process.
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated we need to uphold the approved LCLUP and emphasized that the quarry needs to promote integrated, planned, and well-designed use of the site.
Betty Duran, Pacifica, stated that the community does not want this project because of concerns of health and safety, and concluded it must go away.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated she is concerned about the traffic, as well as other issues, and she urged Council to not approve this plan.
Leo Leone, Pacifica, stated Council should uphold the hard work and analysis of the Planning Commission and expressed his concerns about safety issues. He also shared the previous measure initiative failed because the community did not like the housing aspect and many other plans before this one have failed for the same reason.
Kimberly Williams, San Mateo, is representing San Mateo County chapter of Surfrider Foundation which has serious concerns about the potential for hazardous waste and contaminated soil reaching beyond the project site and traffic impacts, as well as excluding indigenous voices during consideration of this project. She shared thoughts of other options to the site.
Steven Goodale, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the planned project goals for the quarry and stated that Planning Commission rejected it and Pacificans emphatically reject it and he asked Council to reject this project.
Dan Evenhouse, Pacifica, thanked all attendees who came to encourage Council to reject the applicant’s project and asked Council to pay attention to the overwhelming objection of Pacificans to this project.
Carlyle Ann Young, Moss Beach, appreciated the need to reclaim the quarry but shared her concerns on the project plan regarding imported toxic soil and traffic.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, appreciated wanting to develop the quarry but he felt we need to be more responsible and emphasized there needs to be no fill. He suggested rejecting the project City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 23, 2024
based on not meeting CEQA standards.
Ann Sima, Pacifica, thanked them for their efforts as well as fellow residents for speaking up and shared her personal concerns about this project, especially for the youth and schools.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, asked Council to ask the applicant if they have ever done quarry reclamation. She shared her concerns and questions about several aspects of this plan process as well as Council’s decision going forward.
Katie- HNTB, asked Council to think of the impact on the kids as a result of this project. She highlighted the recreational use of the quarry and the safety of the trail used by families.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments, and invited appellant Mr. Stegink to begin his rebuttal.
Appellant Mr. Stegink began his rebuttal. He stated that the applicants represent themselves whereas staff and City Council represent the people. He stated that 68% of the people voted against this project in 2016. He highlighted the tragic history of Native Americans in the quarry and in Pacifica. He mentioned that this will be Council’s legacy and people will remember their decision on the quarry in the future.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Boles can ask her question of the first appellant.
Councilmember Boles stated that he gave the Council some documents, including an email for then Planning Director Murdock on April 22, 2023, to the Department of Conservation, which included an attachment stating the mine was deemed stable with no identified public health and safety issues or noted. She stated that she did not see that attachment.
Mr. Stegink stated they do not have the letter but he assumes City staff has it.
Councilmember Boles asked City staff if they have seen that correspondence.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she has the letter open now.
Councilmember Boles asked if she could read it to them. She stated that she wants to understand if the Department of Conservation is saying that the mine is deemed stable with no identified public health and safety issues, that was material to what we are talking about.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she was confused about who wrote the letter to whom because it seems that former Planning Director Murdock was communicating with somebody from the California Department of Conservation over this letter that he was referencing.
Mr. Stegink stated that was correct.
Councilmember Boles asked if Acting Dep. Director Cervantes can share who the letter is from and to.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added date and subject.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it is not a letter, but a State Mining and Geology Board City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 23, 2024
executive officer’s report for meeting date June 13, 2013.
Councilmember Boles stated that we can go ahead and she would like to come back to that.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if there were any other questions for this appellant.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Pacifica could likely bar individuals and companies solely because San Francisco has already barred them.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we do not have a process in place for barring. The City could institute one but that is a rigorous process. Her understanding is that, in San Francisco, William Gilmartin III went through that process and it was determined that he was barred from engaging in any activity with the city of San Francisco. She stated that is how Pacifica would design ours if we had one in place, but we do not.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated we can hear the other appellant’s rebuttal now.
Mr. William Gilmartin IV spoke representing the appellant, stating that he is not William Gilmartin III and he is 100% owner of Bayland Soil Pacifica, LLC, and he is not debarred from doing business with the City and County of San Francisco and has done millions of dollars of work with that city every year.
Ms. Guerra is continuing with the appellant’s rebuttal. She stated that they understand the community does not like this reclamation plan and they have attempted for the past few years to try to address their comments, whether through reducing the amount of fill as part of the proposed project and agreeing to explore a reduced fill alternative that City staff identified in their own CEQA document. They have also addressed every comment and incorporated measures into the reclamation plan to address those comments. She stated that there are no toxic substances being disposed here; it is not a toxic landfill but a reclamation. She stated that all her client is asking to do is to reclaim the property based on what the law says. It is reclamation that has been required for 30 years. They respectfully request that Council consider this project as a de novo review which is what their law requires and act on this project and approve it in furtherance of what the law requires.
Councilmember Bier asked when and why the appellant added a development pad to the project.
Ms. Guerra stated that they did not add a development pad to the project. There is a 1983 Rockaway Beach Specific Plan, a redevelopment project. At that time, that plan defines proposed land uses. Those proposed land uses have been carried forward in their 1985 General Plan and in each subsequent General Plan update. The 2040 General Plan continues to reflect those land uses. What they did in the context of this reclamation plan was to identify what is the final use. Reclamation under SMARA is required to be adaptable to the end use.
They looked at the General Plan and established what the proposed area was for development based on the figure in the General Plan that identifies land uses within that area. Then, because reclamation on this site is determined based on the topography, the elevation, the existing contours of the property, etc. they did two things: They established what is reclamation based on the ultimate end use, based on the General Plan, and they based the initial reclamation plan in 2020, revised in 2022 and again in 2023, looked at the worst case condition based on open space, no development, and that is how they came up with that.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is showing no flat building pads created for the October 23.
Ms. Guerra stated that the revised reclamation plan dated September 1, 2023, which was submitted as a full package in October 2023 with all the grading plans and all of the engineering plans, was based on open space, no flat pads in the center of the quarry. When they looked at trying to further reduce the amount of imported fill, you have to fill the quarry with something, either dirt or some area of development.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks she answered it that it is predicated on open space.
Ms. Guerra answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he had a couple of questions for Paul Heule. He stated that the community clearly has a sense of his business partners but he has more of a sense of him as an individual. He understands that Mr. Heule was knighted in the Netherlands.
Mr. Heule stated that he was, that the king knighted him prior to work he did for the Netherlands and the United States to promote a number of things for both countries and collaboration between both countries. He stated that it was quite rare and quite difficult as it requires other recommendations and complete background checks.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that his technical question was why Mr. Heule has not done the 1998 plan. When he talked to the Division of Mining Reclamation, they made it clear that it is up to Pacifica at the end of the day what our land use is; they reiterated that they have a plan in their hand and feel perfectly comfortable implementing tomorrow. The plan is approved by Council, reviewed by DMR, CEQA completed, and needs Coastal Commission review.
Mr. Heule stated that every single consultant he has spoken to said that the 1998 plan is a nonstarter with the Coastal Commission. The other appellant showed the hundreds of thousands of cubic yards that were taken out of the quarry, and if you look at the site, just to put six inches of top soil over the entire site is almost 70,000 cubic yards of soil. He stated that it is a large site and, in order to fill that somehow, you either need to bring the hill down and level it off or need to bring it back up. The 1996 plan has about a million cubic yards of dirt that gets moved via that hill being torn down. He was told that the Coastal Commission would deny it.
Councilmember Boles thanked him for being willing to talk with her before this meeting. What she heard from him is that he wants to do the right thing in terms of the environment, the community, and the tribal issues and allowing for those conversations to happen. She is having trouble with this reclamation plan and how that reconciles it. She also clarified that only housing needs to go to a vote of the people, not the reclamation plan and any commercial and development. She reached out to him because of her concern of where we are in this process.
He also said he wanted to go to affordable housing which will take a partnership with the community to come to that point. She asked if he can affirm that those are his goals for the site, in the long run and beyond the reclamation.
Mr. Heule stated his initial intention was not to just create open space, but he proposed a plan that developed less than 10% of the entire 87-acre site and only had at the time 206 apartments and 12 single-family units, then a hotel use. He stated that it is extremely light development and the community made it clear that they did not even want 10% development. He thinks it was an environmentally friendly plan that would have put good wetlands in place. It would have created lots of open space for people to use and all the things she mentioned. People voted it down City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 23, 2024
and went to the same extremes he heard at this meeting. Coming from that history, he thinks, as a property owner, the only reasonable alternative that he has is to comply with state law and reclaim it. Many times people oppose reclamation because people are not willing to do the reclamation because it is expensive; in the last ten years, he has spent millions of dollars to try to get to this point and he wants this thing to be left in a state that is better than where he found it. He is committed to it and he has a track record of the developments that he did do in the United States and Europe, if they were to do a development.
Councilmember Boles stated that, reviewing the Zentner report from May 2017, a reclamation plan after the vote failed, she would like to hear more from him about that and what he was trying to do at that time. She appreciated the summary at the beginning that talked about the design and goals of the design to create safe slopes and minimize grading to the maximum extent practical which reduces the potential impact and limits cost. At this point, she thinks he was looking to pay someone to reclaim the site. She knows it was not fully designed and engineered or reviewed by SMARA but the goal at the time was 108,000 cubic yards of fill, mostly in the quarry floor. It also talked about not working on the limestone faces. She asked if he can talk more about this as it seems like the direction that they would all prefer.
Mr. Heule stated he would prefer as well, adding that there are millions of dollars’ worth of commitment being made there. He stated it would be in his best interest to reduce that reclamation and the way you reduce it is by putting less fill in. He would like to do that, and the consultants tell him that, with all the new requirements and everything that is coming in with the Coastal Commission looking at it, you have a certain amount of space and, in order to do that right, you can only stop filling in so much and then you can get some construction on top of that which will only take care of part of it.
Councilmember Boles stated where she sees a potential conflict of interest is that Bayland Soil is the one who hired the civil engineer. She asked what were the directions given to them. She has a degree of questioning of whether all that fill is required or if this is a way to make money.
She stated that one of these other plans only lasted two years.
Mr. Heule thinks she is correct that they will make more money with more fill. He thinks that is why City staff negotiated with his team to say they approved the 583,000 cubic yard fill and they can go look at something specific that they are going to put there with community input and decide how much fill they need. The City allowed for up to four years to figure it out. If they cannot figure it out in those four years, they will do what the state law requires them to do. He thinks that was built into the approval being asked of Council at this time. Before they haul in one truck, that is probably 18-24 months from today. He stated that City Council instructs Planning Commission and staff to diligently work on a specific plan and they provide the resources as they promised to bring in the consultants that Pacifica decides to hire, not him, to do this in a timely fashion and build a critical path together with the people. He stated we certainly can get community engagement and get a specific plan designed if all the people are held accountable to specific dates and times and the researchers are available to do that. They have agreed to provide the resources as it is up to the City and its team to put together a critical path to make that happen. If the City can come up with 100,000 yards, he would thank them for that as that means they can get going through development quicker and he can get a nice project after everybody is involved. He stated, if it cannot happen, then he needs to comply with state law.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated he has an expert that knows about dealing with Coastal Commission and the plan from 2017 and he said it would not pass. She asked if he can explain that.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 23, 2024
WRA Consultant Justmick stated he is not familiar with the 2017 plan because he came on the project after that, but he thinks they were talking about the 1996-1998 plan and its approvability by the Coastal Commission earlier. He stated that 1 million cubic yards is a lot of material to bring in. The scale of this project is many years of dynamite crushing rock and it is a whole quarry project in and of itself. For the Coastal Commission to approve that is a long shot. They are bringing down the entire mountain and viewscape is a big deal on the coast and an important issue for the Coastal Commission and is probably a nonstarter.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if he is of the mind that bringing in 874,000 cubic yards of fill would be more than something that the Coastal Commission would be in favor of.
WRA Consultant Justmick stated it was something they have been talking to them about, as they submitted permits to them a few years ago and they have been going back and forth.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can give them an idea of Coastal Commission’s major concerns and feedback to date.
WRA Consultant Justmick stated that their comments have been around biological resources, ESHA, and where the wetlands are going to be placed. They have not specifically talked about truck trips but they have asked about reducing the size of the footprint.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if he has done reclamation work for a quarry in the coastal zone.
WRA Consultant Justmick stated he has not personally.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that question is for anybody in their team if they have done reclamation work for a quarry in the coastal zone in California.
Mr. Gurnsey stated that they have approved reclamation plans in the coastal zone, but Pacifica is in a unique situation because the quarry is outside their local coastal development permitting authority and those do not have to go to Coastal Commission. There is an opportunity for them to review them but, since the City does not have the authority to issue the local coastal development permit on behalf of the Coastal Commission, it is a different process.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if he was saying that the Coastal Commission does not have authority and that DMR has the authority.
Mr. Gurnsey stated DMR does not have any authority to approve a reclamation plan. The DMR is one of the bodies of the Department of Conservation. State Mining and Geology Board is a separate body. DMR provides an advisory role and for the most part review and comment on reclamation plans. They can take over some enforcement obligations at certain times and, when the SMGB is the lead agency, DMR acts on behalf as their enforcement. The SMGB is the one that has appellant authority over reclamation plans, not DMR.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if he is saying that the Coastal Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever to approve any biologic plans, ESHA, etc.
Mr. Gurnsey stated that they have to approve a Coastal Development Permit but they do not approve the reclamation, as it is a separate entitlement.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 23, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to follow up to his statement. She stated an increasing area of interest and concern for the Coastal Commission is environmental justice. She asked if any of the people on the team worked in an environment where environmental justice was a factor in the way the plan was put together and what form of tribal consultation did you independently do as you prepared this plan.
Mr. Gurnsey stated they do a lot of work in disadvantaged communities identified by AB 617.
Quarry operations are viewed favorably from an emissions reduction standpoint. He stated that this is a unique situation here as there is no more mining. He stated that it comes down to that they have an obligation to reclaim the site and they have set forth a reclamation plan to them that complies with the law. There is one that is existing from 1996, but Coastal Commission never approved the CDP for it. They are coming to the City for an application. Regarding her question about tribal consultation, they have done a lot of tribal consultation for programs across the state but he has never worked in Pacifica and the tribes culturally affiliated with this area. In his personal experience on what she asked, tribes prefer a government-to-government approach and they respect that and let the counties and cities handle that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that he has not.
Councilmember Boles asked if he has experience in landfill projects.
Mr. Gurnsey stated yes, as they are quite common in quarry sites across the state.
Councilmember Boles asked at what point would this project ever be classified more as a dump.
Mr. Gurnsey stated never, as it is used solely for reclamation purposes, using highly regulated material that comes onto the site that is tested and clean.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is Class 3 soil where some toxins are allowed, not all naturally occurring. She referred to Ox Mountain, stating they also accept class 3 soils, but then they are reviewed by CalRecycle and there are other review of the work that is going on.
Mr. Gilmartin stated the testing requirements stipulated in the soil management plan require that the material received on site meets residential reuse values as established by Department in Toxic Substance Control and match what is normally allowed for in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Councilmember Bier appreciates that. She is concerned about nutrients in the soil.
WRA Consultant Justmick stated that he has done a lot of restoration work and the nice thing about native plants in California is that they do not need a lot of nutrients. They have gone to specifying limited to no fertilizers when they are doing restoration projects and he has done test spots for mine reclamation before and they have tested spots with and without compost. He thinks it is a fine approach that is specified.
Mr. Gilmartin would like to add to that point, that in the revegetation plan, it provides for plant mitigation period when they monitor the vegetation to make sure that it succeeds.
Ms. Guerra wanted to comment that they all have experience dealing with environmental justice matters concerning these types of facilities. She has worked on permitting various energy facilities located at landfills in disadvantaged communities; many of the monitoring measures City Council Regular Meeting 25 September 23, 2024
and those more robust programs they incorporated from a soil management standpoint, air quality standpoint, dust management, and traffic management, all of those are standard features that they have implemented in disadvantaged communities in order to not only maintain existing baseline air quality but improve the conditions for the community. She stated, in the context of addressing environmental justice, it has not only involved addressing the particular demographic in that community but tribal communities as well. She has dealt with this with respect to oil facilities, ongoing oil operations near coastal resources, where there were tribal communities that were not federally recognized tribes. She stated that they are sensitive to these issues which was why they took the approach they did in this context.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they have done environmental justice work in those regards with the visitor-serving community.
Ms. Guerra stated, with visitor serving community, yes, not in coastal resources but in the Central Valley and south coast coastal resources. Most of them have experience dealing with federal agencies in that regard.
Councilmember Boles thought she read in the EIR that the EIR had not analyzed impacts through the creek and to the ocean. She asked if they can talk about it as she is concerned that the impact to waterways might be different. She was told that the State Water Board does not allow Class 3 soil to be used on levees and would this be allowed where things could leech through into environmentally sensitive habitat and the ocean.
WRA Consultant Justmick stated he was not a specialist on hazardous materials or leeching.
They are working with federal and state agencies to get permits for the project, and the creek is out of the formal project area, but these agencies are aware that the work is happening right next to the creek. They have a provisional permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and have been working with the Water Quality Control Board on a 401 water quality certification. They are familiar with what the project is, the material coming in, approximate age of the creek, etc., and that issue has not come up.
Mr. Gilmartin stated that there is one more important distinction: This is not a Class 3 commercial waste site. None of the testing requirements or limits can be defined that way. It is residential reuse values, which means the soil is clean enough to go in your backyard.
Ms. Guerra stated she does a lot of permitting work for levees for flood control facilities and the soils criteria for levees are different than what they would be in this concept. That is driven by levee seepage criteria, Corps of Engineers standard concerning the integrity of the levee for flood control purposes.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is willing to extend the meeting to 1:00 a.m.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, with a lack of a second, that motion fails.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 September 23, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting. She then stated that Council would like to hear from the Planning Commission the reason they denied the project.
Planning Commission Chair Hauser stated the Planning Commission heard a lot of concerns throughout the process and the question they never focused on was whether a reclamation was necessary. What they looked at was if the reclamation as proposed comport with our local policies and did they have a certifiable EIR. First, from a land use consistency view, Planning Commission was not able to make findings that this proposed project was consistent with the General Plan for a number of reasons, but namely that the findings required that the end uses be known and those are not going to be known without a specific plan. The second thing they were asked was does this proposal minimize grading and the answer is no. The applicant’s team responded that there are proposed 3-1 slopes which increased the amount of fill that is being proposed. The second facet of that is that the number kept changing and Planning Commission asked for a discrete number of cubic yards that were being proposed and they were not given one. Part of the reason they were not given one was because the applicant said that it could further reduce the amount of soil by factoring in foundations. She stated can they make a finding that the impact of amount of soil are minimized to the maximum extent feasible, no, because the applicant told them no. On the CEQA topic, they were asked to certify a CEQA report on a project description that kept changing. She thinks Raney did a good job writing a CEQA report but it was on a project that was outdated. For example, on the cultural component of that, they had asked about cultural consultation and were told that in accordance with the law AB 52 consultation was done and that our local tribe does not qualify. She stated that there is a General Plan policy that says that applicants must work with our local tribes and that was not completed. They also felt there was a lot of reliance in the technical memo from August about archeology that relied on SHPO’s assertion but SHPO’s review was from 2022 and specifically had a paragraph that said, if new information comes up, this analysis needs to be relooked at and they did not see an analysis of that kind. Lastly, it was confusing that development was both being suggested and not being suggested and it was hard to look at CEQA holistically with that in mind. For those reasons they were unable to make the findings and additionally Commissioners said it was not the right project for Pacifica.
Planning Commissioner Wright echoed everything Chair Hauser has suggested, but in addition to that, the Planning Commission that Council picked worked hard at this and took their duty and responsibilities seriously. They read thousands of pages, went above and beyond, and did the research and went down into the weeds. They understood exactly what was going on in the past all the way to the present and they were not capable of making the findings that they were asked to make which are very different than the findings Council is being asked to make. They were unanimous and brought all their experience, skills, and acknowledgment to bear. The Commission could not come to the conclusion to support the project.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if anyone had questions for the Planning Commissioners.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, as a determining body, was there consensus around specific findings that could not be made.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 September 23, 2024
Chair Hauser stated yes, Planning Commission could not make findings that this was consistent with the General Plan. They did concur that a specific plan process, which was suggested by Mr. Heule in May, would alleviate that; if a specific plan with community input was completed, they would be more comfortable saying that the reclamation was consistent because the very nature of the findings says you have to understand the end use. She stated that there was deliberation in August where members of the Planning Commission were undecided, but by the end of the evening, they all concurred that they could not make the same findings.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the specific plan and asked was that ever brought forward as a Condition of Approval or discussed as some kind of condition upon which the project could move forward.
Chair Hauser stated that they specifically asked Mr. Heule if they could consider doing a specific plan prior or in parallel to reviewing the reclamation. They understood from him that was not feasible but it was requested by the Planning Commissioners.
Commissioner Wright stated that they did request it and shortly thereafter that the applicant came back with the reduced fill option to try to address part of the many concerns that they expressed during that meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the reduced fill from to 874,000 cubic yards to 573,000.
Councilmember Boles stated that they mentioned the goal of reducing the amount of fill and asked if they are still seeing 3-1 slopes on the 870,000 cubic yard fill project and the 530,000 cubic yard fill project.
Chair Hauser stated yes. The plan the Planning Commissioner reviewed in August was for the 583,000 cubic yards and the applicant confirmed that there were 3-1 slopes being proposed and they were not existing slopes but new slopes.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has been reading through SMARA and trying to understand what is required. She stated Section 3704 has performance standards for grading and slope stability. She stated that the whole 2-1 idea SMARA talks about in terms of final reclaimed fill slopes but there is another section that talks about cut slopes which includes the high wall and the quarry faces. She stated those do not have to be 2-1, as it says, “Those shall have a minimum slope stability factor safety that is suitable for the proposed end use.” Her understanding is soil does not need to be put up against the limestone. She stated that there are areas above the limestone that needed it and other fill areas that needed it.
Chair Hauser stated that the question the Planning Commission originally asked in June 2022 was how much soil and imported soil is needed to reclaim the quarry. That number has been moved throughout this process. She thinks part of what was heard in August at Commission’s meeting was a discomfort at not having a discrete number.
Councilmember Bier stated that confuses her and she cannot see the end uses if she does not have a plan and that is where she keeps going back to. She stated she trusts the Planning Commission and appreciates the work they did.
Councilmember Boles wanted to ask about HPD as they are asking for a variance and HPD requires us to minimize not just development but disturbance. She stated that the applicant’s City Council Regular Meeting 28 September 23, 2024
drawing has some diagrams about HPD that she believes are inaccurate and she wanted to be able to point specific things out. She stated the first part she wanted to pull up was the survey that shows the property line and, if you look on the southern flank, the property line goes all the way down to the ocean. On C01, their lot coverage exhibit, they define their line of what they are counting is not including the property that they own but is the steep bluff on the southern flank. She stated that there is a note with an asterisk that says, “site area includes easement connecting parcels and west parcels, excluding ocean side bluff”. She stated that everything she has read in HPD is that you are not just looking at what you are disturbing, but at your whole site and what the slopes are and then that gives you your calculations. She thinks the calculation of what is allowed is not correct. She also has not seen a calculation of what is proposed. She thinks it is easy enough to say the whole quarry bowl site is disturbed but the staff report says 2.8 acres are disturbed on the eastern parcel and there is no diagram of what is counted. She stated that there is a letter from the applicant that says the 2.8 acres is the wetland and the mitigation pond, but they are grading the quarry road for a new road, putting things down, building culverts, etc. and she has seen no drawings of any of that defining that work. She has not seen a tree replanting plan. HPD says, if you are not going to count it as a disturbance, you cannot touch it. It has to stay in its natural state and, if you are planting trees somewhere or taking pampas grass out, she did not find any reference to that happening. She stated that is disturbance too and that has not been counted. She does not feel comfortable approving a variance that she does not have the information on. She stated that they should be minimizing grading. She stated that the Coastal Commission had an issue with HPD and the rezoning too.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked regarding rezoning what it was and what it is proposed to change to with planned development.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the 1980 General Plan and 1980 LCLUP do not have a standard land use for the site. It is called a special area, and the uses include commercial, residential, City Hall, and Marina. She stated that the land use under the 2040 General Plan is visitor-serving commercial and conservation. The current zoning for the site is service commercial with a public vote required to rezone for residential use, HPD overlay and a coastal zone district overlay. The proposed zoning is planned development with a public vote required to rezone for residential use, the HPD and the coastal zone overlay. As part of the Coastal Commission approval, they would also need to approve the rezoning of the site from the current zoning to the proposed zoning.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what the planned development includes specifically. She understands visitor-serving, commercial, conservation, low intensity, etc. and she does not know what exactly planned development means. She just knows that term has been used in relationship to Sharp Park Specific Plan areas as well.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it is slightly different. Because of the HPD, under that zoning article, it states if you want to do any further development, including grading or excavating, you need to get a development plan and, in order to have a development plan, you also need to have a specific plan. She stated that the term “specific plan” in this sense is not like the traditional Sharp Park Specific Plan where we have a document that has land uses and policies of what is going to be there. By the way the code is written, it is a development plan that is telling what the use will be (reclaiming) and the specific plan is the information of how it is going to be reclaimed for this type of project. It is not like the traditional specific plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan, that we are used to seeing a document that is labeled specific plan. This is a requirement of our code when we have projects that are in the PD zoning or needs to obtain City Council Regular Meeting 29 September 23, 2024
PD zoning because they are in a HPD, the project materials themselves are the development plan and the specific plan. There are a lot of examples in the last 10-15 years, specifically with single-family residences that have been approved by the City where they are in the HPD or the PD zoning district on the northwest side of the City and they are required to go through the development plan and the specific plan office in order to develop.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that specific plan nomenclature have a modern equivalent that our code should be modernizing to.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes was not sure.
Councilmember Boles stated she has another General Plan consistency question related to ESHA. CO-I-28 said, “If the area qualifies as ESHA, under the California Coastal Act, the following restrictions apply… alteration of land forms, removal of vegetation, impervious surfaces, noise, light and glare, shall be minimized.” She stated that it is about minimizing the work in ESHA. She knows in the General Plan map this whole area is mapped as potential ESHA. She was given a letter from Coastal Commission from 2005 which had to do with a project on Fassler but it referred to the quarry area, and she read the section from the California Coastal Commission on May 23, 2005: “ESHA in wetlands, section on Highway 1 that would be expanded as traffic mitigations for the proposed residential project on Fassler is part of the Pacifica quarry site which contains wetland, stream and riparian habitats that holds San Francisco garter snake, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and other special status species. The area supports one of the few remaining breeding habitats for the San Francisco garter snake and is thus critical for long term viability of endangered species.” She does not know what the impacts to ESHA are and we do not know what they are doing in the flat part of the land.
Chair Hauser stated this is something in the August meeting the Planning Commission did discuss. Figure 7-3 of the General Plan shows the quarry as potential ESHA and Figure 6-1 in the previous element shows it as other protected open space. Part of what was difficult about creating a land use consistency finding with the General Plan was so much of this quarry area is designated conservation in our land use element and being able to find that this particular reclamation which does disturb these areas was consistent with the way we define conservation in our General Plan. That was one of the findings they were asked to make and specifically were unable to.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we do have General Plan policies that do state prohibiting development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the Federal Clean Water Act and California Coastal Act. There is also language that refers to if impacts to wetland is unavoidable, compensation measures should be included, and that is what occurred here.
There is an Environmental Impact Report that outlines the impacts to biological resources, including wetlands, and the appropriate mitigation measures for that.
Councilmember Boles stated it refers to the wetland in the quarry parcel which is being moved, but it does not refer to the wetland in the main parcel. She stated we do not know what they are doing in the main parcel because we do not have a vegetation plan. She stated that there may be impacts here that we do not know anything about.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how would that be corrected in the EIR. When you have an EIR that is based on a certain amount and then, if it is going to change, how does that happen.
She asked if the EIR is amended or is it redone.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 September 23, 2024
Mr. Stinson stated the entirety of both sites were surveyed by the biologist and identified where the wetlands exist on the site and identified which ones would be impacted by the proposed project. As part of the proposal is inclusion of some manmade built wetlands at a ratio that satisfies the requirement. As far as how the project morphed over time, the first project they looked at was the biggest one; as the applicant came back with less fill, they were asked to take a look at that plan and reviewed it against what the EIR said and determine whether there are any changes or anything that might trigger recirculation. They submitted a memo to look at that smaller 874,000 cubic yards fill plan. He stated that the conclusion was that it was the same footprint from a biological standpoint, just less fill going into that footprint, and they are still impacting the same amount of wetlands.
Councilmember Boles stated we do not know what the impacts are to the eastern parcel.
Mr. Stinson stated the only improvements being done in the eastern parcel are related to the ingress and egress and the mitigation ponds themselves.
Councilmember Boles stated ingress and egress is right next to wetlands and they are creating a culvert over the wetlands. She stated that there are no drawings that show what the impact is to that. There are also trees that are super close and no drawing that shows the tree canopy and does not show any of those trees being removed but there is no analysis showing the impacts to the trees in an arborist report.
Mr. Stinson stated, in the bio chapter, there is a discussion on tree removal and the arborist report identified where the protected trees that were slated for removal are all in the quarry parcel. He stated it identified where the trees are required for removal but showed where the ingress goes through there are protected trees along that route but are not slated or required for removal. There will be some minor trimming and there is a mitigation measure in the EIR that requires a tree protection plan to make sure that those trees are adequately protected.
Councilmember Boles does not understand why that is not in the application now. She stated the problem is that the tree canopies are touching and the roots are touching so trucks driving on that road would impact the trees and that has not been analyzed in the arborist report. She stated that there are also wetlands all through there and the wetlands grow in the winter time and she was not convinced that they are not impacting the wetlands with the truck movement either. Regarding the tree replanting, she stated that there is no plan. In the General Plan, it talks about the quarry area being coastal scrub which is not an area that has trees. The tree replanting would likely be in the quarry flat parcel and they have not shown evidence impacting the wetlands with more disturbance and we do not have that information.
Mr. Stinson stated that the biologist that went out and did the survey identified where the wetlands are. He stated that was also peer reviewed and they determined that the impacts have been identified and there is adequate mitigation to reduce the effect.
Councilmember Boles asked where are the plans that show what they are doing to the road and the culvert. She stated it is increasing the slope and having berms on the side and how do they know what the impacts are for the wetlands. She said it is creating a road over wetlands that possibly extends into the wetlands. She is looking at the grading plan C10, which talks about the slope changes. Culverts are referred to in the application but she does not see details of them anywhere. She stated that she has been struggling in finding all the drawings.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 September 23, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated that comment has been noted and we can come back to that if he finds what she is looking for.
Councilmember Boles stated Chair Hauser mentioned the General Plan required tribal consultation, and she asked if she can point her to where that is.
Chair Hauser stated that CO-I-70 is an implementing policy which requires applicants to “work with local native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites”.
Councilmember Boles thought that was very broad.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to mention of something about a 2022 study that suggested that, if new information comes up, we should be consulting with the tribe.
Chair Hauser stated there was a memo from Raney and ALTA and that memo relied heavily upon the State’s Office of Historic Preservation concurrence. When the applicant tried to get their Army Corps permit, the state has to opine as to whether or not there are cultural resources in order to move forward with the biological permits. As part of obtaining that report, SHPO issued a concurrence letter which was an exhibit to this long archeological memo that was given to the Planning Commission. If you look at that SHPO letter, it says with the information we have, this is our concurrence; if new information comes to light, the applicant is required to provide additional information and may be required to do more.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that comment was more in relation to the EIR, not General Plan consistency.
Mr. Stinson stated that the Section 106 process is a federal requirement and was triggered through consultation related to 44 permitting. As far as the CEQA document and the requirements in that document, they based their analysis on multiple reports prepared over time.
The latest went out and surveyed an area greater than the project area and determined, through their pedestrian in person auditing and surveys, that there were not any resources on the site.
Even so, they do have mitigation measures that identify what you need to do in case you do come across something as the project is in an area that is cultural sensibility.
Chair Hauser read the paragraph on the memo: “Be advised that, under certain circumstances, such as an anticipated discovery or a change in project description, the COA may have additional future responsibilities for this undertaking under 36 CFR, Section 800, as sequential.” She stated that the tribe indicated as such on the record during public comment and in a May 17, 2024 letter, which is important because the SHPO letter is from 2022. Because this is a fill operation and not about excavation, she thinks the question the Planning Commission asked is has the cultural component of the EIR been done properly or is this additional information that requires going back to the process.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 September 23, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor Vaterlaus does not see this ending in a resolution at all tonight and she knows we want to submit items that we are interested in to Planning so we can get those items settled.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested giving information to staff to bring back findings that may be used for denial at the next meeting if we should continue.
City Attorney Kenyon suggests that the Mayor take a straw poll to see where Council is, and if Council is going where Councilmember Bigstyck is going, then there have been concerns raised in terms of General Plan consistency issues, failure to have a concrete understanding of what that final grading plan would be for 583,000 cubic yard fill, tree plans, etc. Council could get a consensus with a straw poll to see where the Council is supportive of addressing the appeal issues tonight or if they feel it needs to be continued to get more information to make a decision.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he had some difficulty understanding Mr. Stegink’s appeal because the project was already denied by the Planning Commission. He thought it was counterintuitive that somebody would appeal something that went the way they seemed to think it should have gone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that was why it was staff’s recommendation that Council deny that appeal.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are prepared at this time to make findings of denial for that appeal.
City Attorney Kenyon does not know because she does not know what the majority of Council wants to do. She suggested that the Council do a straw poll and she can help direct them on what the next steps would be depending on the results of the poll. She said just a consensus would suffice, as the appeals are unrelated to the de novo review of the project. There are actions on the appeal and actions on what Council wants to do with the de novo review of the project which they have to review. Her suggestion is, if Council can give staff an indication of where the majority of Council wants to go with the project, staff can deal with the appeals after that. She reiterated that she is asking for a straw poll that will give consensus on where the Council is going with the project because she can then help direct the next steps in deliberation.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has ten more pages of questions if they are reviewing to approve. She thinks she has raised in a short time that there is more grading than they need and fill and the HPD is incorrect. She is okay having findings of denial as she cannot see a way to approve the project as it stands now.
There was Council consensus.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if that is the case, Council will make a motion to direct staff to come back with a resolution denying the project. Staff would then need from Council what would be the basis for denial. She wants to confirm all those, and we will come back at a future City Council Regular Meeting 33 September 23, 2024
meeting where Council will then review this, most likely on consent as the actual motion regarding the project will be taken at this meeting and the formal resolution documenting their action at this meeting will be brought back at a later date. She stated that, at this point, staff needs to hear from Council what is it about this project that makes them not want to approve it and, in fact, make a motion to deny. She has heard issues with the General Plan consistency, issues with the HPD calculation, and issues related to slope calculations.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the fact that we do not have all the information that we would need to go forward, like math and trees.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that what she heard is that there was a plan that we do not have.
She heard Council concurred that a reduced fill alternative, less than 583,000 cubic yards, could be consistent with SMARA.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated our Municipal Code requires a reclamation plan submitted with a grading plan and it sounded as though that was incomplete as a grading plan was not there. She has a concern about the completeness of the application for our codes.
Councilmember Bigstyck added traffic plan under the Circulation Element.
Councilmember Boles stated that the General Plan allows analysis of level of service and that has not been analyzed to understand the impact. She referred to 9-205, which includes a final grading plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there was a recommendation to look at the Circulation Element of the General Plan and not just what is required in the EIR. She wanted to know if, in that analysis, the health and safety considerations that were brought forward were included in the EIR. She referred to the truck trips, amount of diesel, air quality impacts, etc., Mr. Stinson stated, in the air quality and GHG section, there is an entire modeling effort put forward for toxic air contaminants, including diesel particulate matter from exhaust from the hauling trucks. They specifically looked at idling emissions at the intersection, their whole ingress and egress path, idling in the quarry, as well as all of the equipment operating in the quarry. That is put through a dispersion model and identifies concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors which included the school that they looked at and they did the full analysis and it is under the significant thresholds.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that includes the slope and grade of Highway One in terms of safety concerns raised with brake and driving in a low gear.
Mr. Stinson stated, from the emission standpoint, they used speed bins and that gives you the emissions associated with acceleration and deceleration that are a result of downshifting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is focused on emissions.
Mr. Stinson stated it is focused on emissions.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked where does that safety concern fit in and would it be a Condition of Approval.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 September 23, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thought there would be two possible ways, one through Public Works roadway design. There could be something specifically on the site related to this project or Condition of Approval for management and the driving of the trucks as well.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the other point that was made about ingress and egress and safety considerations with traffic for our first responders. That is the concern she had.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to staging and how do they stage the trucks when coming in.
Mr. Stinson stated there was a queuing analysis done to ensure that there was adequate deceleration space and room for the truck to get into the site. Given the distance of the ingress and egress paths, there is adequate space to hold quite a few trucks and there was an analysis that was done based off of the signal timing on the egress and there is a flag person there to make sure that there is safe movement of the trucks in the parking lot and there was an analysis done for how many trucks can be moved during peak hour times and how much stacking length is there in the project and there is ample room on the site for them to back up and still move through as the signal timing allows.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was an expert hired by Attorney Grisetti Jeffrey Hornick, a traffic expert who commented on the inadequacies of the traffic in the EIR. She asked if he had analyzed it.
Mr. Stinson stated, from the start, they had an expert do the traffic analysis which was peer reviewed. He stated this project is slightly different than a normal project, a commercial development with vehicle trips associated with that trip generation. This project is slightly different in that there is a demand for soil as projects are under construction in the region and that generates a demand for where that soil needs to go somewhere and there is an existing demand. By putting this as an additional receptacle, the analysis methodology was what was the VMT without this project and what is the VMT with this project, truck trips only, and how do they compare the net difference, and that is how this project analysis was done, separate from employee trips.
Councilmember Boles was not sure she agreed with that but did not think we are getting into the EIR tonight. She would like to hear about that 2013 letter from staff.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it was the State Mining and Geology Board executive officer’s report dated June 13, 2023, and it appears that the Pacifica’s quarry was an item that the State Mining and Geology Board took to one of their hearings. This was agenda item 4, review of lead agency response to state Mining and Geology Board issuance of a 45-day notice to correct deficiencies to the City of Pacifica pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Following review, the board may take appropriate action in accordance with public research code section 2774.48. It appears that what occurred is during the time period from 2010 to 2012, the City was not compliant with SMARA and the Board found four deficiencies related, specifically to the financial assurances that are required for reclamation projects. This is essentially an item that the Board heard where they determined that the City in June 2013 had sufficiently partially met or had fixed all the deficiencies. The part that was quoted in the email is a section in the background of the agenda item and the last sentence of the first paragraph of the background says, “Although it seems stable with no identifiable public health and safety issues, the site remains unclaimed in accordance with this approved reclamation plan.” She stated that is the complete sentence.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 September 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that it has not officially been reclaimed but they do not see any public health and safety issues.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that is the summary.
Councilmember Boles stated that the reclamation may not need to be very much if they do not see safety issues. She stated that we do not know.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the point is we do not know. He asked if we are supposed to make a motion to give direction or are staff just taking direction.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we would need a motion to deny the appeal and to direct staff to bring back a resolution denying the appeal and denying the project with appropriate findings as set forth tonight.
Councilmember Bier said so moved; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she would like Asst. City Attorney Murphy to reflect what we have heard in terms of what those finding would be.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated what staff have heard is generally inconsistency with the General Plan, including requirements to minimize disturbance, ESHA requirements, conservation policies, and policies regarding working with tribes; in addition, concerns about minimizing fill based on slope requirement as well as general concerns about whether the plan minimizes fill and disturbance; in addition, concerns about clarity about the end uses, given the changing plans; and concerns about the lack of information on the plans and ability to make the findings, given the lack of information; and lastly lack of compliance with HPD and the zoning requirement in our Municipal Code.
City Attorney Kenyon stated what Council is doing tonight is making the motion to deny and they are asking staff to document those denials and findings in a formal resolution which staff will bring back to Council on consent at a future Council meeting.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy clarified that, because we do not have a resolution, this is not final action on this application. Final action will take place when the resolution comes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to make sure Asst. City Attorney Murphy has the part that the reclamation plan was submitted but did not have a grading plan per Pacifica Municipal Code 9-205.
Mayor Vaterlaus added the tree plans.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, when he talked to the Division of Mining Reclamation and they reiterated, it seemed on no uncertain terms, the 1998 plan can go forth. He heard the consultant tonight say in their opinion, the Coastal Commission would not approve it. He thought he does not know how Coastal Commission is going to go for upwards of 1 million cubic yards of fill being brought in. They brought up the vision of a marina in the General Plan and it reminded him when he was running four years ago and that was the vision of one of the people he was talking to. He stated the mayor had a desire to have biotech in that area. He had his own vision about that quarry. He stated that his point is that he has heard several different visions of what could be there and that is what a specific planning process is about. He stated City Council Regular Meeting 36 September 23, 2024
that is the idea, a process engaged where all the community members go forth and give the vision and then it may be voted on and approved. It seems that they are talking about disruption of the site in mitigating the disruption of the site to the point feasible, but we are disrupting our community on a constant basis between then and now and toxicity of soil. He stated that if at any point a specific plan and process had been engaged in, we would be on a very different footing. He thinks, if that process is engaged in, we might have a sense of what the community might actually rally behind. He did not think we can figure out what the right option for fill is that they can agree on as a community without knowing what that specific plan process would say. His answer to that is, according to the Division of Mining Reclamation, there is already a plan in place that they think passes and that if we had that specific plan process, we would all be having a much better time in life.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wants to acknowledge the aspects of a community-based specific planning process that creates a vision. She wants to thank the applicant for bringing the community together. Regarding work done with the Coastal Commission, she sees the evolution in their thinking around incorporation of tribal consultation and incorporating concerns into those kind of planning processes.
Councilmember Bier was going to say thanks to staff as this is in no way a reflection of all the hard work they have done. She stated that she has lived in this community her entire life and this topic has come up so many times.
Councilmember Boles agreed that visioning and having a specific plan are important and part of that her vision includes Ohlone Ramaytush Cultural Center. This could be something that draws people here and something that we could be proud of. She mentioned to Mr. Heule that we do want to work on the specific plan.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she had a vision too a long time ago and it was voted by the people and it lost by 509 votes.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that that the 538,000 cubic yard fill plan, in theory, would have facilitated a specific plan but he thinks that, if we had initiated a specific plan under those auspices, it would have been dubious in our community.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked them to vote.
DENY THE APPEALS AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION DENYING
THE APPEALS AND DENYING THE PROJECT WITH APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AS SET FORTH AT THE 09/23/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 September 23, 2024
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 12/9/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor