RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA (1) DENYING
APPEALS OF DAN STEGINK AND BAYLANDS SOILS PACIFICA, LLC, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S EFFECTIVE DENIAL OF VARIOUS ACTIONS ON THE ROCKAWAY QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN; AND (2) DENYING REZONING RZ-210-22, DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP-86-22, SPECIFIC PLAN SP-179-22, VARIANCE PV-531-22, QUARRY USE PERMIT UP 71-16, AND TREE PERMIT TP-1-22 (FILE NO. 2016-001) Initiated by: Paul Heule and The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC (“Owner”) and Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC (“Baylands”) (collectively, the “Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application was submitted to reclaim and restore the former Rockaway Quarry as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), California Public Resources Code, Section 2710 et seq., incorporated by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”), by importing approximately 970,000 cubic yards of soil for the reclamation, establishing 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond, constructing new unpaved recreational trails and drainage improvements throughout the site, and removing 25 protected trees, on the former Rockaway Quarry, approximately 86-acres in area, located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project allowed for open space as the ultimate end use of the Project site; and
WHEREAS, a prior reclamation plan for the Project site was previously approved by the City in 1996, with revisions proposed in 1998, which remains in effect and included balanced cut and fill with zero imported fill; however, the proposed Project would alter the prior reclamation plan; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the C-3X/HPD/CZ (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Project site would require a rezoning to the P-DX/HPD/CZ (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) zoning district from the existing C3X/HPD/CZ zoning district as required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay zoning district standards in PMC Section 9-4.2256, and require approval of a Development Plan to assign site-specific zoning pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203, both of which are legislative actions and require City Council adoption of an ordinance pursuant to state law and the PMC; and
WHEREAS, upon the Project site’s rezoning to the P-DX (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) Zoning District, the Project would require approval of a specific plan prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit to ensure consistency with the approved development plan pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2208 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Project would require a variance pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3401 to exceed the coverage limitations for grading within the HPD overlay zoning district contained in PMC Section 9-4.2257; and
WHEREAS, the Project would require approval of a quarry use permit to authorize reclamation of a quarry pursuant to PMC Section 9-2.04; and WHEREAS, the Project would require approval of a tree permit to authorize removal of protected trees pursuant to PMC Section 4-12.04(a); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Coastal Zone; however, the site is not within the City of Pacifica’s Certified Local Coastal Program and an application for a Coastal Development Permit must be separately approved for the Project by the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”); and
WHEREAS, henceforth, the rezoning and development plan shall collectively be referred to as the “Legislative Actions” and the specific plan permit, quarry use permit, variance, and tree permit shall collectively be referred to as the “Development Permits”; and WHEREAS, City of Pacifica Community Development Department (formerly the City of Pacifica Planning Department) is the Lead Agency for preparing the environmental review for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for Project approval; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica Planning Division issued a Notice of Preparation of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) on September 2, 2020, for the Project, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) for the Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City of Pacifica issued a Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability for the DEIR, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City of Pacifica distributed copies of the DEIR to public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to publicly accessible repositories including the Sharp Park and Sanchez branches of the Pacifica Library and invited comments on the DEIR in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and WHEREAS, the 45-day minimum public review and comment period for the DEIR ran from February 16, 2022, through April 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were collected and responses to comments (“RTC”) were considered in the revisions made to the DEIR to comprise the Final EIR (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) was made available to the public on January 13, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on June 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, where the planning commissioners and members of the public expressed concerns and requests for more information on the potential impacts of the Project. The comments primarily pertained to traffic concerns, air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effects on biological resources, soil testing criteria of imported fill, and potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff; and WHEREAS, in response to the comments expressed at the June 5, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, particularly those of the commissioners, the Applicant prepared a Revised Reclamation Plan (“Revised Project”). Among other revisions, the Revised Project proposed a reduced amount of imported fill (874,000 cubic yards) which reduced imported fill from the 970,000 cubic years required by the previously proposed Project and continued to allow for open space as the ultimate end use; and
WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant evaluated the Applicant’s changes and determined they did not change the analysis and conclusions in the draft and final EIRs and are anticipated to result in fewer environmental impacts than the previously proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Project on March 18, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the commissioners and members of the public expressed concerns about the Revised Project. The concerns primarily pertained to the quantity and quality of imported fill, traffic concerns including the high number of daily truck trips, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, consideration of seasonal variations in reclamation activities, and public health and environmental impacts including biological, hydrology and tribal cultural resources impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 6, 2024, to allow the Applicant time to address the concerns expressed at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, the May 6, 2024, meeting was later cancelled and replaced with a Planning Commission Study Session held on May 20, 2024, upon the request of the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, at the May 20, 2024, Study Session, the Applicant proposed an alternative that would import approximately 583,000 cubic yards of soil (the “Reduced Fill Alternative”), with the option for further reductions after a specific planning process, and received input from the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the commissioners and members of the public reiterated concerns pertaining to quantity and quality of imported fill, soil testing, water quality, tribal cultural resources, the high number of daily truck trips and traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental impacts including biological, hydrology and tribal resources impacts. In addition, the Planning Commission sought information and clarification on the SMARA requirements and process, and the Reduced Fill Alternative and correlation with the specific plan process; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the applicant’s attorney submitted a letter on behalf of the Applicant that proposed an alternative plan, but did not include submission of any complete drawings or revised technical plans, as an alternative (“July 2 Proposal”) with a maximum amount of 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill. The July 2 Proposal did not include submission of any complete drawings or revised technical plans and stated that the Applicant:
“needs to fill [the] quarry pit and grade the site to restore wetlands and habitat as part of reclamation. It takes approximately 653,000 cubic yards of fill (583,000 cubic yards of which is imported fill) to do that even with a future effort to implement development as reclamation proceeds”; and
WHEREAS, the July 2 Proposal did not include complete updated drawings, grading, drainage or compaction plans, or updated technical studies; and WHEREAS, the July 2 Proposal further noted that if a “Specific Plan is approved by 2027, then the applicant/property owner will limit the amount of imported fill to a total of 400,000 cubic yards provided that sufficient fill material can be generated on site to fill the quarry so that development of future end uses contemplated in the General Plan may proceed after reclamation”; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Project and considered the July 2 Proposal on August 19, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the Revised Project, as conditioned, but the motion failed with a vote of 0-5-2 (Devine and Godwin absent); and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, Baylands Soils Pacifica, LLC (“Baylands”) filed an appeal (“Appeal 1”) of the Planning Commission’s effective denial; and WHEREAS, on August 29, 2024, Dan Stegink (“Stegink”) filed an appeal (“Appeal 2”) of the Planning Commission’s effective denial; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the two appeals and Revised Project on September 23, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the City Council hearing, the City Council continued to express concerns about the Revised Project, as conditioned, noting, among other things, that there is an existing reclamation plan already approved by the City that requires no imported fill, that reclamation under SMARA does not require the amount of fill proposed, and that the proposed slopes could be steeper. The City Council also noted concerns about the amount of imported fill, inaccuracies in the HPD coverage and disturbance calculations, the changing and unstable project description, environmental impacts including the loss of wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (“ESHA”), the potential harm to Calera Creek and the Pacific Ocean from leaching of soil contaminants into the creek, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, concerns about soil testing, and inconsistencies with the General Plan and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, after discussion and deliberation, the City Council voted 5-0 to direct staff to bring back a resolution denying the Revised Project based on the evidence in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution and incorporated in the findings below.
2. Findings. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, plans, oral and written comments and testimony, oral and written documentary evidence presented, and all other related materials that form the basis of the record for the hearing. As the Applicant did not amend its Project application to include the July 2 Proposal, this Resolution acts on and denies the Revised Project. However, the City Council declined to condition the Revised Project as set forth in the July 2 Proposal for reasons set forth in this Resolution, as well as due to the absence of clear and complete plans, such as grading, drainage, compaction and tree plans, demonstrating how the July 2 Proposal would be implemented.
3. Determination on Appeals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny Appeal 1 and deny Appeal 2, based on the following findings pertaining to these Appeals of the Planning Commission’s action:
1. Appeal 1 Filed by Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC (“Baylands”).
Basis 1. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial because it was not supported by substantial evidence.
Finding: The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits. The City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and is making findings based on substantial evidence in this resolution.
Basis 2. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Project because the Commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
Finding: The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits. The City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and is making findings based on substantial evidence in this resolution.
Basis 3. The Planning Commissioner erroneously stated that they could not make the required findings for approving the Project but they did not adopt any findings to reject the Project Approvals.
Finding: The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits.
Therefore, no findings were necessary. The City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and is making findings in this resolution.
Basis 4. The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion because the Planning Commission did not adopt any findings to deny the Project in violation of State Law.
Finding: The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits.
Therefore, no findings were necessary. The City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and is making findings in this resolution.
Basis 5. The Planning Commission erroneously claimed that the Reclamation Plan would not mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Finding: Since the Planning Commission did not approve the project, no CEQA action was required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.)
Basis 6. The Planning Commission misconstrued the Project Specific Plan Finding: There is no evidence in the record that the Planning Commission misconstrued the Specific Plan requirements.
Basis 7. The City Council should review this Appeal and reject the Planning Commission’s Decision rejecting the Project approvals.
Finding: As this appeal is heard de novo, the City Council may approve, deny or modify the application as if it were reviewing the action anew. (PMC Section 9-4.3208.) Thus, the Council may consider the application and determine whether the Revised Project in fact should be approved. In considering the issues raised by this application and following review of all the application materials and other evidence in the record, the City Council has determined to deny the Revised Project.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s effective denial.
2. Appeal 2 Filed by Dan Stegink.
Basis 1. Felons involved should be barred from doing business in Pacifica.
Finding: The City is not able to prohibit any individual and/or entity from doing business in Pacifica.
Basis 2. Nothing in Quarry requires remediation or imported fill.
Finding: Under State law, the property owner is required to reclaim the Quarry site, subject to SMARA and the City’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-2.01 and obtain a SMARA Compliance Review from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation.
Basis 3. Quarry is an Indigenous cultural asset worthy of both California and National registration of Historic Places Designation
Finding: This Basis for appeal involves the CEQA review for the Revised Project, which analyzed the Revised Project’s impacts on historical resources. As this resolution denies the Revised Project, the City Council does not need to make findings under CEQA or address this Basis for denial.
Basis 4. The Biological Resources Report is inadequate.
Finding: This Basis for appeal involves the CEQA review for the Revised Project, which analyzed the Revised Project’s impacts on biological resources. As this resolution denies the Revised Project, the City Council does not need to make findings under CEQA or address this Basis for denial.
As set forth above, there is no basis for Mr. Stegink’s appeal.
4. California Environmental Quality Act. With respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” codified at California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR §§ 15000, et seq.), as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15270(a), “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.” Therefore, this resolution denying the Revised Project approvals is exempt from CEQA and the City Council takes no action to certify the EIR.
However, even if the City Council intended to move forward with the Revised Project, a number of concerns with the EIR have been noted during the public hearing process that could require further review, including but not limited to, issues regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and transportation, biological resources, hydrology, hazardous materials, and cultural and tribal cultural resources.
5. Denial of Rezoning and Development Plan. The City Council hereby denies Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22, as it cannot make the following findings required for approval, as set forth in Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) section 9-4.2206:
1. Section 9-4.2206(b) sets forth the following finding: “Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.” The Revised Project is not capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability nor does it adequately assure that these objectives can be attained. As the Applicant is unclear as to the ultimate end use of the Project site (open space or development) and has proposed imported fill amounts that range from almost 1 million cubic yards in the original application, to 874,000 cubic yards for the Revised Project, to 583,000 cubic yards and 400,000 cubic yards in the July 2 Proposal, it is uncertain how the site would ultimately develop. Further, it is unclear exactly how much total fill and imported fill, if any, would be needed for development of the ultimate end uses.
Ultimate development could involve additional unanticipated fill, removal of fill placed on the site through reclamation, or additional grading.
2. Section 9-4.2206(c) sets forth the following finding: “The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.” The Revised Project would be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding uses as it would create excess truck traffic along an already congested local coastal highway, and involve grading and fill that may not be necessary for development of ultimate end uses. Further, the Revised Project does not minimize grading to the maximum extent practicable as it creates slopes that are less steep than allowed and includes excess fill on the quarry face. This creates the necessity for a large amount imported fill, which in turn creates detrimental impacts on the present uses, including those in the Coastal Zone, regarding traffic and a longer reclamation period, adversely impacting surrounding neighborhoods and highways.
3. Section 9-4.2206(d) sets forth the following finding: “The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.
The increase in traffic on streets and thoroughfares during construction is neither suitable nor adequate to address the impacts resulting from approximately 146 truck trips per day for four years, as proposed in the Revised Project. This would be a significant increase in traffic on the adjacent street network over the proposed fouryear period of reclamation in the Coastal Zone. This increase would not be necessary as the actual number of truck trips ultimately required for reclamation is unclear. The amount of imported fill required for the Project has been revised numerous times throughout the approval process without clarity on the final amount of imported fill required for the Revised Project. Thus, it is not clear what amount of imported fill is ultimately the minimum required for reclamation.
4. Section 9-4.2206(g) sets forth the following finding: “The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.” The area surrounding the development cannot be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the Revised Project because the amount of imported fill necessary for the Revised Project is unclear. The Applicant has suggested a number of possible end uses and imported fill amounts during the permitting and hearing process, as described above. Therefore, it is unclear what will ultimately develop on the Project site and how much grading will be necessary for that development. Given this lack of certainty, it is unclear whether the amount of grading and subsequent impacts will be necessary for ultimate development and the surrounding area cannot be planned in compatibility with the Revised Project.
In addition, the Revised Project is not consistent with the General Plan. First, the Revised Project site is located within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay district, and the Revised Project exceeds the HPD coverage and disturbance standards. The HPD overlay district includes coverage controls that limit the allowable surface area of buildings, paving, and grading based on a formula that relates to the size and average slope of the Revised Project site as provided in PMC Section 9-
4.2257. Sheets C0.1 and C1.0 in Attachment E of the Planning Commission October 2023 staff report demonstrate in more detail the grading area and calculations for allowable and proposed HPD coverage on the Quarry Parcel and Eastern Parcel as determined by the Applicant. The proposed reclamation plan sets forth the HPD coverage values provided in Table 1:
Table 1
Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Coverage
Parcel Coverage Allowed Per PMC
Sec. 9-4.2257 Coverage Proposed
Quarry
Parcel 3.0 acres (7.42% of site) 22.0 acres (54.45%)
Eastern
Parcel 15.5 acres (39.64% of site) 2.8 acres (7.16%)
As reflected clearly in Table 1, the Revised Project would not be consistent with these HPD coverage controls without a variance. Further, the Applicant’s calculation of coverage allowed for the Quarry Parcel neglected to include the southern flank area of the parcel, which includes some of the steepest areas of the site and would result in a lower allowable coverage area. Also, the coverage proposed for the Eastern Parcel neglected to include disturbance from work on the quarry access road from Highway 1, which conflicts with HPD requirements that “All areas not considered coverage shall remain undisturbed in their native or natural state, with the exception of the recreational areas.” Thus, the HPD coverage is not only inconsistent with the HPD coverage requirements, but also incorrect.
Further, the Revised Project is not consistent with the following General Plan policies:
a. Open Space and Community Facilities Element, OC-G-5 Open Space Preservation, which states: “Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety. ….”
The Revised Project does not preserve open space or protect natural resources, visual amenities and public health. The Revised Project is in an area within the Coastal Zone that supports critical wildlife habitat, which requires any reclamation on the property to be approved in the least impactful manner to avoid damaging natural resources, visual amenities and public health and safety to the greatest degree. According to the April 4, 2022, comments from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on the EIR, the Project site includes environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), riparian corridors and wetlands. Also, a May 23, 2005 letter from the CCC states: “ESHA and Wetlands… Due to the presence of special-status species and the function of the site as a San Francisco Garter snake breeding habitat, the Pacifica Quarry area is an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act.” The Revised Project will impact existing wetlands and ESHA. The CCC comments state that mitigation for loss of wetlands are recommended to be in kind and on-site in the Western parcel, whereas the Applicant has proposed mitigation off-site on the Eastern parcel, which may not fulfill the same role as the current wetlands since the existing wetlands are dispersed and provide a unique habitat value to the site. Further, it is unclear as to what amount of imported fill, if any, and disturbance is ultimately necessary to reclaim the site and prepare for future end uses. In addition, the high number of daily truck trips needed to haul in the fill will result in negative impacts to noise levels, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. Therefore, the Revised Project does not protect natural resources, visual amenities and public health and safety.
b. Circulation Element, CI-G4 Level of Service (LOS) for all Modes of Travel.
Assess the performance of the transportation system by measuring how well pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles as well as automobiles are able to move within and through the community.
The traffic analysis for the Revised Project did not analyze the impacts on Levels of Service along Highway 1 by assessing the performance of the transportation system, as required. Highway 1 is the only north-south roadway through Pacifica along the coastline. The egress point for the Revised Project at the intersection of Reina Del Mar and Route 1 is a heavily congested areas in Pacifica, especially during school drop-off and pickup hours as Vallemar School is located on Reina Del Mar just east of Highway 1. Given the lack of analysis, the City was not appropriately able to measure how well pedestrians, bicycles, transit vehicles and automobiles are able to move within and through the City.
c. Circulation Element, CI-G7 Congestion on Highway 1. In consultation with Caltrans, seek solutions to ease the traffic congestion that occurs on Highway 1 near the Reina Del Mar, Fassler Avenue, and Linda Mar Boulevard intersections. Strive for the greatest benefit with the least environmental impact possible.
The Revised Project will not ease traffic congestion and will not have the least environmental impact possible. The project site is along Highway 1, a busy coastal highway that travels through the City. The addition of 146 truck trips per day for a period of four years on this already congested stretch will create additional congestion and impacts to the community.
d. Circulation Element, CI-17 Vehicle Level of Service on Roadways Included in the Congestion Management Program. Accept an LOS E on SR 1 and SR 35, consistent with the C/CAG Congestion Management Program (CMP), in planning improvements.
In the absence of a proper traffic analysis measuring the impacts on levels of service from the Revised Project, there is no substantial evidence to find that the Revised Project does not reduce LOS below E. As noted above, the project site is located along Highway 1, the only north-south roadway through Pacifica along the coastline. The egress point for the Revised Project at the intersection of Reina Del Mar and Route 1 is a heavily congested area in Pacifica, especially during school drop-off and pickup hours as Vallemar School is located on Reina Del Mar just east of Highway 1. The addition of 146 truck trips per day for four years will only increase the traffic congestion. e. Conservation Element, CO-I-28 Management of ESHA, which states: “If the area qualifies as an ESHA under the California Coastal Act, the following regulations apply: Alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation, impervious surfaces, noise, light, and glare shall be minimized.”
The Revised Project does not minimize alteration of landforms or noise in the Coastal Zone. The project site includes environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), riparian corridors and wetlands. As a result, alteration of landforms and noise are required to be minimized. As discussed above, the Revised Project does not minimize grading or alteration of the existing landforms. The Revised Project will adversely impact existing wetlands and ESHA. Contrary to the recommendation of the CCC, the Applicant has proposed mitigation off-site on the Eastern parcel, which will not fulfill the same role as the current wetlands since the existing wetlands are dispersed and provide a unique habitat value to the site. Further, it is unclear what amount of imported fill, if any, and disturbance is ultimately necessary to reclaim the site and prepare for future end uses. The Applicant has proposed a number of different plans and amounts of fill. Ultimately, it is clear that the Revised Project includes more fill and grading than necessary, particularly given the lower imported fill amounts of 583,000 or 400,000 cubic yards proposed by applicant in its July 2 Proposal. f. Conservation Element, CO-I-70 Native American Sites, which states: “Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape. Development on archaeologically sensitive sites requires on-site monitoring by appropriate Native American consultant(s) and a qualified archaeologist of all grading, excavation, and site preparation activities that involve earth-moving operations.”
The Applicant did not work with the Ramaytush tribe when preparing the Revised Project plans. The Revised Project would impact a site significant to the local Ramaytush tribe. While the Applicant has indicated its agreement to work with the Ramaytush tribe in the future, the development of the Revised Project was conducted without consultations or meeting with the tribe.
g. Conservation Element, CO-G-13 Improve Air Quality. Reduce emissions of ozone-producing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of Pacifica and Bay Area residents.
The Revised Project does not reduce emissions of pollutants and particulate matter, but rather increases them due to the numerous truck trips that would be required to bring imported fill to the project site. The reclamation could be performed with less imported fill, which would result in less emissions and be more protective of the health of Pacifica and its residents.
h. Land Use Element, LU-I-25, Rockaway Quarry Site, which states: “Enable the responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry Site.
Preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry site could achieve the desired development outcomes. Allowable development should provide City revenues, substantial public open space, and commercial uses and public spaces attractive to both visitors and local residents. Uses may include an inn or hotel; shops and restaurants; performance or conference spaces; and public uses. Ordinance No. 391 provides that residential uses are only authorized after a vote of the electorate.
Development should be integrated with the Rockaway Beach district, to create an expanded visitor-oriented area in a memorable natural setting. Environmental protection is a priority at this site and includes preserving upland areas as open space, preserving the riparian corridor along Calera Creek, and preserving critical habitat.
Any development of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards and biological resources to ensure safe use of the site and that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; the likely footprint of development could be much smaller than the area designated.”
The Revised Project would not enable responsible development and conservation of the Quarry Site. Reclamation under the Revised Project would occur prior to a specific planning process and would not allow for coordinated grading and development of the Project site. Further, the Applicant has proposed numerous alternative options, with varied fill amounts, depending on the ultimate development. This does not promote responsible development of the Quarry Site.
5. Section 9-4.2206(i) sets forth the following finding: “The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.” As discussed above, the Revised Project would not be consistent with the General Plan, including policies in the Open Space and Community Facilities Element, Circulation Element, Conservation Element, and Land Use Element of the General Plan.
F. Denial of Specific Plan Permit. The Specific Plan permit cannot be approved as the Rezoning and Development Plan are denied. Further, with respect to the findings required for a Specific Plan permit, the City Council considered all of the required findings in PMC Section 9-4.2209, and finds that the finding set forth below cannot be met. Therefore, the Specific Plan permit is denied.
1. Section 9-4.2209(a) sets forth the following finding: “The specific plan is consistent with an approved development plan.”
The proposed specific plan permit is not consistent with an approved development plan. As set forth above, the development plan has been denied. Therefore, the finding for approving a specific plan cannot be made.
G. Denial of Variance. The Variance is not required as the Rezoning, Development Plan, and Specific Plan permit are denied. Further, with respect to the findings required for a Variance, the City Council considered all the required findings in PMC Section 9-4.3404, and finds that the findings set forth below cannot be met. Therefore, the Variance is denied.
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
The strict application of the City’s HPD requirements would not deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and subject to the HPD regulations. The HPD overlay district is applied to various properties in the City of Pacifica. The HPD overly district in PMC section 9-4.2252 is intended to preserve natural terrain and topographic features and to regulate new development to preserve natural hillside topography. As described throughout this resolution, it is not clear that the amount of fill proposed in the Revised Project is necessary for reclamation, especially in light of proposals that allow for less fill. Alternative reclamation plans would have the potential to limit fill and be more compatible with the City’s HPD requirements. Therefore, requiring compliance, or closer alignment, with the provisions of the HPD coverage limits would not prevent the Applicant from accomplishing legally required reclamation of the former quarry site.
2. That the granting of such variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.
The granting of a variance for the Revised Project would adversely affect the health and safety of persons in the neighborhood of the Revised Project site and would be detrimental to the public welfare. As discussed throughout this resolution, the amount of fill and grading required by the Revised Project is not designed to minimize impacts to public health, safety, and the general welfare, especially within the sensitive coastal zone. Reclamation could be accomplished with less fill in accordance with SMARA, which would limit the traffic and other impacts of the Revised Project.
H. Denial of Quarry Use Permit. The Quarry Use Permit cannot be approved as the Rezoning, Development Plan, Specific Plan permit and Variance are denied. Further, with respect to the findings required for a Quarry Use Permit, the City Council considered all the required findings in PMC Section 9-2.07(b), and hereby finds that the following findings cannot be met. Therefore, the Quarry Use Permit is denied.
1. Section 9-2.07(b)(1) sets forth the following finding: “The reclamation plan conforms fully to the provisions of this chapter, the City's general plan, and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Sections 2772 and 2773, and shall comply with applicable requirements of State regulations (Sections 3500-3505 and 3700-3713) as may be amended.”
a. The Revised Project would not be consistent with policies in the General Plan, as more fully detailed above in Section E(4) regarding denial of the Rezoning and Development Plan.
b. The Revised Project is not consistent with the intent and purpose of SMARA in requiring reclamation. As stated in Public Resources Code Section 2712, the Legislature’s intent in enacting SMARA was to assure that:
(1) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses;
(2) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment; and,
(3) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated.
This intent is captured in the definition of “[r]eclamation” set forth in Public Resources Code section 2733, as follows:
“’Reclamation’ means the combined process of land treatment that minimizes water degradation, air pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding, erosion, and other adverse effects from surface mining operations, including adverse surface effects incidental to underground mines, so that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition that is readily adaptable for alternate land uses and create no danger to public health or safety. The process may extend to affected lands surrounding mined lands, and may require backfilling, grading, resoiling, revegetation, soil compaction, slope stabilization, or other measures.”
The Revised Project does not reclaim the site to a usable condition that is readily adaptable for alternative land uses, as it is not clear what the ultimate end use will be and how much fill is required for such end use. Further, the Revised Project does not give adequate consideration to watershed, wildlife and aesthetic enjoyment as it includes more imported fill than necessary, which in turn creates adverse impacts on the environment, including traffic congestion, loss of wetlands and impacts to ESHA. c. The Revised Project is not consistent with the performance requirements of the SMARA regulations in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 3704(d) and (f), which provide the following:
“Section 3704: Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability, and Recontouring. Backfilling, regrading, slope stabilization, and recontouring shall conform with the following standards:
(d) Final reclaimed fill slopes, including permanent piles or dumps of mine waste rock and overburden, shall not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), except when site-specific geologic and engineering analysis demonstrate that the proposed final slope will have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use, and when the proposed final slope can be successfully revegetated.
….
(f) Cut slopes, including final highwalls and quarry faces, shall have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use and conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use.” The Revised Project includes excess fill that is not required by SMARA and that creates unnecessary adverse impacts due to the excess traffic and other disruptions that would occur over a period of four years, contrary to the intent of SMARA.
Specifically, slopes are generally required to not exceed 2:1. Here, however, the Revised Project would include slopes that are less steep than 2:1 and require more fill than necessary. As a result, the slopes could be steeper, thus requiring less fill and creating fewer impacts. Further, an exception to the 2:1 slope requirement is if slopes “have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use and conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use.” Thus, SMARA allows that slopes could be steeper than even 2:1, depending on the applicable slope stability factor of safety, which at this time is not clear given that the Revised Project does not contain a slope stability or compaction analysis. Steeper slopes could reduce or avoid the need for additional grading and the exorbitant amount of fill proposed, thereby reducing impacts of the Revised Project. Further, under 3704(f), the quarry face is not required to have 2:1 slopes, but rather must have a “minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use and conforms with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use.” Here, the Applicant has not demonstrated that steeper slopes, as allowed under SMARA, would not meet these requirements, especially given that the Revised Project does not contain a compaction or slope stability analysis and that it is not clear what the ultimate end use will be. Again, the proposed slopes could be modified to reduce the impacts of the Revised Project on the City and surrounding neighborhood. Further, the Applicant’s documents demonstrate that the proposed grading and amount of fill is not necessary. Section III(B)(d) of the proposed reclamation plan explicitly notes that the quarry face is “geologically stable” and “does not require regrading,” highlighting that the large amount of proposed fill is not required.
d. The Revised Project does not comply with the requirements in SMARA regulations in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 3502 (b)(4), which provides:
“Areas mined to produce additional materials for backfilling and grading, as well as settlement of filled areas, shall be considered in the reclamation plan. Where ultimate site uses include roads, building sites, or other improvements sensitive to settlement, the reclamation plans shall include compaction of the fill materials in conformance with good engineering practice.” The Revised Plan does not contain a compaction or slope stability analysis and therefore does not meet the requirements of SMARA. Further, given the fact that the ultimate end use is unknown (open space or development), it is not clear which compaction standards would apply to this project.
2. Section 9-2.07(b)(4) sets forth the following finding: “The reclamation plan will restore the mined lands to a usable condition that is readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the general plan, local coastal land use plan, California Coastal Act, and Zoning Code.”
As detailed above, the Revised Project does not restore lands to a usable condition readily adaptable for alternative land uses. There have been numerous plans and fill amounts proposed and it is not clear what is ultimately necessary for development of end uses. Further, as described in detail above, the Revised Project is not consistent with the General Plan or the City’s Zoning Code.
I. Denial of Tree Permit. The Tree Permit is not required as the Rezoning, Development Plan, Specific Plan permit, Variance, and Quarry Use Permit are denied. Further, with respect to the findings required for a Tree Permit, the City Council considered all the required criteria in PMC Section 4-12.04(c), and finds that the findings set forth below cannot be met.
Therefore, the Tree Permit is denied.
1. Section 4-12.04(c)(2) sets forth the following criteria: “Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.” The Tree Permit is not necessary for economically viable use of the property as the Revised Project is being denied and it is not necessary to remove any trees. In addition, other viable uses of the property could occur without cutting down all the requested trees.
2. Section 4-12.04(c)(4) sets forth the following criteria: “The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.”
Removal of the protected trees would result in potential adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, and historic value on the Project site or immediate surroundings given that the Revised Project is being denied and no trees need to be removed.
J. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective upon its adoption. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 18th day November 2024.
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney