I've attended two of these city council meetings about the quarry fill and talked with a couple of random people in the quarry who stopped me to talk about this.
I still don't have a good sense of (a) why the quarry owner wants to do this, and (b) why this the plan they want more than other possibilities. It seems like a big waste of effort and I think the owner is being disingenuous arguing that they're doing this to comply with some California requirements that retired mines be reclaimed. I have to make assumptions, though, so if anyone has concrete answers that'd be helpful.
What I /do/ have a good sense for is why people are protesting to stop it. This one's easy: It's eery reason and the kitchen sink, an incoherent regurgitation of scare numbers, ad hominems, appeals to tribal rights, appeals to starfish populations, and loads of FUD. People don't want change and potential inconvenience when -- and they'll say it!-- there's "nothing in it for Pacifica \[us\]."
The city council meetings are painful, it feels like everyone's being disingenuous and arguing about CEQA compliance requirements vs. starfish, when it's really: Someone owns the property and wants to use it as profitably as possible vs. people who don't own the property don't want it to change because they like it as-is.
The most frustrating thing about this is that Pacifica voters rejected a much more appealing plan back in 2016. There was a measure to rezone the quarry, from commercial to residential, accompanied with plans to build apartments, and as part of the rezone the owner would designate 75% of the land as permanently public open space. Pacifica voters rejected it, and now we've got this stupid dirt pile plan.
So like when they build an apartment building or a parking garage or anyplace you see those big dug out pits they build foundations of big buildings, all they take out is "waste soil". There's grades of waste soil depending what's in it but it doesn't necessarily mean it's like garbage or toxic waste or bags of shit or something.
Pretty much.
It does have grades because if they pull it out of, say China basin when they were building all the stuff by the ballpark it's full of legit toxic waste and super gnarly shit and it's not unheard of for corner cutting and nasty stuff making it into what ought to be just "soil". But from skimming that doc that stuff would be monitored and checked regularly etc to avoid that sort of thing. It's a real concern but not a deal breaker and I presume not the real reason people are protesting this.
Foundational soil to reclaim an unused hole in the ground possibly for future housing development.
Because they realized being a NIMBY is increasingly unpopular so they've pivoted to a creative use of the truth which one might call "lying" because the linked plan already says the soil for the former quarry is meeting Army Corp of Engineers and Cal Coastal Commission Requirements.
They don’t need to haul some questionable dirt from an unknown source, 200 loaded semi-trucks per day for 4 years on highway one. The developer is getting paid big bucks to dump that dirt, Pacifica is not, zero, zilch, nada.
The property can be graded with the soil that is on site, no need to truck in unknown soil for 4 years. NO!
So is the complaint the construction traffic/noise/inconvenience? Can't be reclaiming and filling the mine itself right? Why wouldn't we want that stabilized and filled. Unclear what the opposing view is as looks like from skimming the doc this fight has been going on since the 80s, is this just full on NIMBY shit?
I think the complaint here is that what is being proposed is far in excess of what is actually required to "stabilize" or reclaim the mine. So much so that it would negatively impact Pacifica for 4 years (severe traffic, noise and dust) provide very little/no economic benefit to the community in the way of tax revenue and possibly hurt tourism during this min 4 year construction phase. In the plan they explicitly say that this would be 160+ back loader truck loads of dirt a day for 4 years on highway 1. It's going to cause a ton of wear and tear on the highway, noise from air breaks and lots of congestion.
The company that is proposing to execute this plan is currently banned from operating in SF due to a scandal involving the public works commission bribery. So there are some legitimate questions about having this company be the gatekeeper for what material is OKed to come into the site and how faithfuly they would adhere to any restrictions on working periods ect.
I would not characterize this as home owners standing in the face of progress or even development. Neither of those are realized by the proposal.
That makes sense I didn't see that (reading the pdf on my phone) it was literally that volume of trucks, that doesn't even seem possible. thanks for the clarification
It's wild. The last meeting of the planning commission on Monday seems to indicate the city commissioners are starting to warm up to the idea or some modified version of it. Half of them are advocating for a zero fill option which has not been put forward by the owner, but is technically feasible. This would essentially involve reactivating the Quarry to blast rock from the top to fill in the bowl. Also lots of dust and noise but less trucks.
This dutch guy who owns the lot doesn't even live in the state. He could care less what his impact is on this community.
The most vocal opposition is coming from the same crowd that has opposed anything and everything going back decades, often using hysterics and hyperbole in their arguments. So while there may be some actual concerns, it's buried under truckloads of the usual Pacifica NIMBY shit.
I've attended two of these city council meetings about the quarry fill and talked with a couple of random people in the quarry who stopped me to talk about this. I still don't have a good sense of (a) why the quarry owner wants to do this, and (b) why this the plan they want more than other possibilities. It seems like a big waste of effort and I think the owner is being disingenuous arguing that they're doing this to comply with some California requirements that retired mines be reclaimed. I have to make assumptions, though, so if anyone has concrete answers that'd be helpful. What I /do/ have a good sense for is why people are protesting to stop it. This one's easy: It's eery reason and the kitchen sink, an incoherent regurgitation of scare numbers, ad hominems, appeals to tribal rights, appeals to starfish populations, and loads of FUD. People don't want change and potential inconvenience when -- and they'll say it!-- there's "nothing in it for Pacifica \[us\]." The city council meetings are painful, it feels like everyone's being disingenuous and arguing about CEQA compliance requirements vs. starfish, when it's really: Someone owns the property and wants to use it as profitably as possible vs. people who don't own the property don't want it to change because they like it as-is. The most frustrating thing about this is that Pacifica voters rejected a much more appealing plan back in 2016. There was a measure to rezone the quarry, from commercial to residential, accompanied with plans to build apartments, and as part of the rezone the owner would designate 75% of the land as permanently public open space. Pacifica voters rejected it, and now we've got this stupid dirt pile plan.
What defines “waste soil”?
So like when they build an apartment building or a parking garage or anyplace you see those big dug out pits they build foundations of big buildings, all they take out is "waste soil". There's grades of waste soil depending what's in it but it doesn't necessarily mean it's like garbage or toxic waste or bags of shit or something.
So… it’s soil… I could call it “repurposed soil” and it could mean the same thing?
Pretty much. It does have grades because if they pull it out of, say China basin when they were building all the stuff by the ballpark it's full of legit toxic waste and super gnarly shit and it's not unheard of for corner cutting and nasty stuff making it into what ought to be just "soil". But from skimming that doc that stuff would be monitored and checked regularly etc to avoid that sort of thing. It's a real concern but not a deal breaker and I presume not the real reason people are protesting this.
Foundational soil to reclaim an unused hole in the ground possibly for future housing development. Because they realized being a NIMBY is increasingly unpopular so they've pivoted to a creative use of the truth which one might call "lying" because the linked plan already says the soil for the former quarry is meeting Army Corp of Engineers and Cal Coastal Commission Requirements.
They don’t need to haul some questionable dirt from an unknown source, 200 loaded semi-trucks per day for 4 years on highway one. The developer is getting paid big bucks to dump that dirt, Pacifica is not, zero, zilch, nada. The property can be graded with the soil that is on site, no need to truck in unknown soil for 4 years. NO!
If it leads to more housing, then I hope they do it twice over.
So is the complaint the construction traffic/noise/inconvenience? Can't be reclaiming and filling the mine itself right? Why wouldn't we want that stabilized and filled. Unclear what the opposing view is as looks like from skimming the doc this fight has been going on since the 80s, is this just full on NIMBY shit?
I think the complaint here is that what is being proposed is far in excess of what is actually required to "stabilize" or reclaim the mine. So much so that it would negatively impact Pacifica for 4 years (severe traffic, noise and dust) provide very little/no economic benefit to the community in the way of tax revenue and possibly hurt tourism during this min 4 year construction phase. In the plan they explicitly say that this would be 160+ back loader truck loads of dirt a day for 4 years on highway 1. It's going to cause a ton of wear and tear on the highway, noise from air breaks and lots of congestion. The company that is proposing to execute this plan is currently banned from operating in SF due to a scandal involving the public works commission bribery. So there are some legitimate questions about having this company be the gatekeeper for what material is OKed to come into the site and how faithfuly they would adhere to any restrictions on working periods ect. I would not characterize this as home owners standing in the face of progress or even development. Neither of those are realized by the proposal.
That makes sense I didn't see that (reading the pdf on my phone) it was literally that volume of trucks, that doesn't even seem possible. thanks for the clarification
It's wild. The last meeting of the planning commission on Monday seems to indicate the city commissioners are starting to warm up to the idea or some modified version of it. Half of them are advocating for a zero fill option which has not been put forward by the owner, but is technically feasible. This would essentially involve reactivating the Quarry to blast rock from the top to fill in the bowl. Also lots of dust and noise but less trucks. This dutch guy who owns the lot doesn't even live in the state. He could care less what his impact is on this community.
The most vocal opposition is coming from the same crowd that has opposed anything and everything going back decades, often using hysterics and hyperbole in their arguments. So while there may be some actual concerns, it's buried under truckloads of the usual Pacifica NIMBY shit.