Agenda — Pacifica City Council, September 23, 2024 (part 2 of 4)

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Vaterlaus

MAYOR PRO TEM
Sue Beckmeyer

COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Tygarjas Bigstyck
Christine Boles
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
September 23, 2024
The Honorable Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: City of Pacifica’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”
Dear Judge Lee and Members of the Grand Jury:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced Civil Grand Jury report filed on July 11, 2024. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933(c), the City of Pacifica’s (“City”) response to the several findings and recommendations contained in the report are provided below. The Pacifica City Council reviewed and approved the responses at a public meeting on September 23, 2024.

Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings:

F1. High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

Response to F1. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F2. Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

Response to F2. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F3. City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain noncompliant.

3.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Grand Jury Response Letter- The State of Compost Compliance in SMC_9-16-15 [Revision 1] (5755 : San City of Pacifica’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” | September 23, 2024
Response to F3. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F4. Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

Response to F4. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F5. Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and Cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

Response to F5. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F6. Assessing progress on organic waste diversion in Atherton, Brisbane, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside is difficult because they and their haulers do not separate waste tons by property type on their annual or quarterly reports.

Response to F6. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F7. An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

Response to F7. The respondent agrees with the finding.

F8. Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae cannot properly track their waste trends since their hauler and contractor have contradictory diversion rate formulas and tonnage measurements.

Response to R8. Not applicable: The City of Pacifica is not named in this finding and therefore has no comment.

Responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations:

R1. Beginning March 1, 2025, Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host regular inperson green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and multi-family dwellings and identify other new compliance strategies.

Response to R1. The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future.
a) The first events will be at the annual Earth Day Event in April 2025 and the annual 2025 Pacifica Fog Festival. Recology will also meet one on one with service users in an effort to improve diversion and reduce disposal quantities.

R2. Beginning January 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should investigate their Electronic Annual Report contractor’s diversion rate conversion formulas and

3.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Grand Jury Response Letter- The State of Compost Compliance in SMC_9-16-15 [Revision 1] (5755 : San City of Pacifica’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” | September 23, 2024
their hauler’s waste scales.

Response to R2. Not applicable: The City of Pacifica is not named in this recommendation and therefore has no comment.

R3. By July 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should begin using the simpler diversion rate calculation the report mentioned or develop a contingency plan if their hauler’s scales are inaccurate.

Response to R3. Not applicable: The City of Pacifica is not named in this recommendation and therefore has no comment.

R4. Beginning November 30, 2024, Cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

Response to R4. The recommendation has been implemented. a) Recology provides specific participation and tonnage information monthly. The City will post the monthly reports on the City’s website.

R5. Beginning December 31, 2024, Cities should separate waste tons and diversion rates into the three (or two) property types (business, residential, multi-family) in their annual or quarterly reports.

Response to R5. The recommendation has been implemented. a) On Pacifica’s current rate schedule there are only two property types in Pacifica, residential and commercial. The Recology monthly and annual reports provide separate tonnage data for both residential and commercial properties.

R6. Starting April 1, 2025, Cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should conduct waste evaluations on highly contaminated routes more often.

Response to R6. The recommendation has been implemented. a) Currently waste evaluations are conducted by both Recology drivers using a tagging system and a Waste Zero specialist.

R7. Starting May 1, 2025, Cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should analyze problematic routes’ past and present contamination trends to track their progress.

Response to R7. The recommendation has been implemented. b) Recology drivers, Waste Zero specialist and the Recology management team analyze problematic routes and contamination trends in efforts to improve diversion and reduce disposal quantities.

3.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Grand Jury Response Letter- The State of Compost Compliance in SMC_9-16-15 [Revision 1] (5755 : San City of Pacifica’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” | September 23, 2024
R8. By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

Response to R1. The recommendation has been implemented. a) Recology offers 32, 64, & 96-gallon organic carts to customers, Recology also offers training and outreach materials to ensure success.

Sincerely,

KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager
cc: Pacifica City Council

3.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Grand Jury Response Letter- The State of Compost Compliance in SMC_9-16-15 [Revision 1] (5755 : San

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project
RECOMMENDED 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
David Harvey, Assistant Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
John Mullins, DPW Interim Director
(650) 501-0350
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On April 8, 2024, City Council authorized the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Agreement and a Construction Management Agreement for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project. The project installed 14 new ADA curb ramps, sidewalks, and other miscellaneous related work. The project was funded by Measure W funds.

There were five change orders issued to the contractor RK Engineering Inc. during the course of construction in the amount of $47,381.20. The change orders were for additional ADA curb ramps, sidewalk, installation of a french drain, and installation of a catch basin/pipe to reroute water. With the change orders, the final contractor construction cost for the project was $205,320.20.

As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also 4 Packet Pg. 141
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
protects the City from claims against us for any nonpayment on the part of the contractor. The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $10,226.01, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are received.

The City Manager is recommending the adoption of the attached resolution accepting completion of the project and the filing of the Notice of Completion (Attachment 1) with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. The total project Source and Use of Funds table is shown below. The project balance will remain in the Measure W/Fund 11.

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Measure W $205,320.70
Total Source of Funds $205,320.70
Construction Cost ($205,320.20)
Total Use of Funds ($205,320.20)
Project End Balance $0.50
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the resolution accepting completion of the project, but as the work has been satisfactorily completed, the contractor may file a claim against the City for nonpayment of retention if there are no claims.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: This construction project improved the existing pedestrian network by installing ADA-compliant curb ramps and repairing curbs and sidewalks.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1-FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps NOTICE OF COMPLETION (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 142
Pacifica City Council 3
September 23, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ___-2024

A 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 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, his Certificate as to the completion of all the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and RK Engineering, Inc., on April 8, 2024; and WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:

1. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.

2. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special and regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 4 Packet Pg. 143

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR THE FY 2024-25 SIDEWALK, CURBS, AND ADA RAMPS IMPROVEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Roland Yip, City Engineer of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to RK Engineering Inc. on April 8, 2024, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications for said work filed with the City Clerk, and approved by the City Council of said City.

That said work and improvements were actually completed on the 5th day of July 2024 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 23rd day of September 2024, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Endurance Assurance Corporation.

That said work consists, generally of concrete curb ramps, sidewalk, curb and gutter and other miscellaneous work.

Name and address of Owner: City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, California 94044
Roland Yip, P.E.

City Engineer

VERIFICATION
The undersigned states that he is the City Engineer of the City of Pacifica and that he makes this verification on behalf of said entity; that he has read the foregoing, and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.

Roland Yip, P.E.

City Engineer
Executed at Pacifica, California, on September 23, 2024.

ATTACHMENT 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 1-FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps NOTICE OF COMPLETION (5759 : Notice of Completion for the FY

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

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
RECOMMENDED 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
John Mullins, DPW Interim Director
(650) 418-4297
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On September 24th, 2018, the City approved an agreement with Cotton Shires & Associates (CSA) along with their subconsultants to analyze, design, and permitting on the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project (Project). The concept chosen for the Project was a vertical seawall along the toe of the bluff with the upper portion of bluff remaining unarmored and allowing it to recline to a more stable slope. The total budget authority for Task Order No. 1 was $ 682,050.

On June 10th, 2024, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), completing a major milestone on the Project. There were various unanticipated challenges since the approval of the agreement with CSA to the certification of the EIR. These included the temporary suspension of the project for more than 1 year while the City evaluated options and looked for additional funding, additional EIR analysis and reviews in response to comments, various additional requirements by the California Coastal Commission, and using the existing cost estimates budgeting on the design concepts. An additional budget of $197,355 is needed to complete the design and permitting on the Project (Attachment 3).

Over the past several decades, the northern coastline of Pacifica has seen progressive coastal bluff erosion threatening man-made development. The combination of poorly cemented bluff sand and high energy waves cause the bluff sand to be eroded, resulting in a loss of land, 5 Packet Pg. 145
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
laterally. This land loss puts the bluff edges closer to public infrastructure, including roads and utilities. The erosion is generally episodic in nature. Some winters, there may be no erosion, while some winters that see strong storm events may experience significant erosion (>10 feet).

As a result of the erosion occurring in the 2015-16 winter season and subsequent removal of apartment buildings at 310, 320, and 330 Esplanade, the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation project was born with the goal of maintaining existing infrastructure and utility services in the area.

On June 30th, 2017, staff received notification from the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) that Pacifica's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant application was formally approved for the first phase (Design & Environmental) of the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project.

After preliminary design work was completed, it became clear the cost of a vertical shotcrete seawall with sheet pile scour protection (preferred alternative) was going to cost significantly more than originally estimated by CSA. Staff began to consider other funding options while continuing technical studies needed for the preferred alternative to be permitted and designed appropriately were progressed. In early 2020, the project was ready to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission and undergo their CEQA equivalent process. However, due to budgeting issues, the project was put on hold. At the time it was placed on hold it was unclear if the project would be continued to be managed by City Staff or if the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would take over the project under their Continuing Authorities Program (CAP 103).

City Staff then worked with USACE as well as with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the CalOES to see where additional funding could be secured. After several meetings with USACE and FEMA, it became clear funding the project through FEMA would provide the project higher funding than through USACE if FEMA was to award additional HMGP funding. City Staff has continued to work with FEMA/CalOES on allocating additional HMGP and appears to be close to consensus with the project scope and funding. Staff is hopeful that it will receive additional funding for the project. Additionally, through support from then Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, the City was able to receive a total of $7.75 million in funding through the State of California budget process in the summer of 2021 for this and other projects.

The additional work is not expected to increase the City’s match and therefore does not require any further budget at this time as current grant funding will cover this cost. It is therefore the City Manager’s recommendation to approve Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Services Agreement (Attachment 1) and Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 (Attachment 2) between the City of Pacifica and CSA for design and environmental engineering services for the 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.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternative Action would be to not approve the budget amendment which would prohibit the design and permitting from being completed. Staff does not support this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Consultant Services Agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
5 Packet Pg. 146
Pacifica City Council 3
September 23, 2024
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: This project will put in action steps to preserve Esplanade Avenue and all of the infrastructure within it.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact. The amendment associated with the Consultant Services Agreement with CSA will be in the amount of $197,355.

Total Budget Authority
Total Cost of Amendment No. 1 $ 197,355
10% Contingency $ 20,595
Original budget authority $ 682,050
Total Budget Authority $ 900,000
Estimated Project Costs
Planning & Design$ 900,000
Construction $ 13,565,000
Total $ 14,465,000
Funding Sources
FEMA/CalOES HMGP$ 9,250,000
State Budget $ 3,215,000
City ERAF $ 2,000,000
TOTAL $ 14,465,000
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1-Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement & Scope of Services (PDF) Attachment 2-Amendment No.1 to Task Order No. 1 (PDF)
Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 147
Pacifica City Council 4
September 23, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 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 SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $197,355.00 RELATED TO THE 310-330 ESPLANADE INFRASTRUCTURE

PRESERVATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City desires to move forward with the design related to the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project using a portion of the funds FEMA/CalOES HMGP and State Budget Grants; and
WHEREAS, the City evaluated Cotton, Shires & Associates’ proposal, and is satisfied they can successfully complete the work and has been satisfied with their services on past City projects; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to amend the Consultant Services Agreement and Task order No. 1 with Cotton, Shires & Associates for the purpose of extending the term of the agreement to September 30, 2028 and the additional cost of $197,355. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special and regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
____________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________ ____________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 5 Packet Pg. 148

Page 1 ends

AMENDMENT No. 2 to CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 to Consultant Services Agreement is entered into as of the 23rd day of September 2024, by and between the CITY OF PACIFICA, herein called the “City,” and Cotton, Shires Associates, herein called the “Consultant.”

RECITALS
A. City desired to obtain professional design and environmental engineering services for the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project (“Project”), and for that purpose entered into a Consultant Services Agreement with Consultant dated September 24, 2018 (“Original Agreement”), by which City hired Consultant to provide professional design and environmental engineering services for the Project.

B. City desires to amend the Time of Performance section of the Consultant Services Agreement.

C. Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant is skilled and able to provide such services described in this Amendment No. 2.

D. City desires to authorize Consultant to modify the services described in this Amendment No. 2 of the subject project per the attached scope.

AGREEMENT
A. Amendment. The Parties agree that the Consultant Services Agreement shall be amended as set forth below.

1. Article 3 “Time of Performance”.

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be extended upon execution of the second signature and remain in full force and effect until September 30, 2028 (the “Term”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manger or his/her designee and CONSULTANT.
[Signatures on Next Page]
"ATTACHMENT 1" 5.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 1-Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement & Scope of Services (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the

Page 2 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 as of the date first written above.

CITY OF PACIFICA CONSULTANT
Cotton, Shires & Associates
By: By:

Kevin Woodhouse David T. Schrier
City Manager CEO
ATTEST:

By: __________________
Sarah Coffey
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Michelle M. Kenyon
City Attorney

5.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 1-Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement & Scope of Services (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Page
3 EXHIBIT A
SCOPE& COMPENSATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1

5.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 1-Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Agreement & Scope of Services (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the

Page 1 ends

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT No. 1 to TASK ORDER No. 1
This AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 to Task Order No. 1 is entered into as of the 23rd day of September 2024, by and between the CITY OF PACIFICA, herein called the “City,” and Cotton, Shires Associates, herein called the “Consultant.”

B. On September 24, 2018, the City and Consultant executed Task Order No. 1 for a total maximum compensation amount not to exceed $620,046 (“Task Order No. 1”).

C. City desires to amend the Compensation and Payment and Time of Performance sections of Task Order No. 1.

D. Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant is skilled and able to provide such services described in this Amendment No. 1.

E. City desires to authorize Consultant to modify the services described in this Amendment No. 1 of the subject project per the attached scope.

AGREEMENT
A. Amendment. The Parties agree that Task Order No. 1 shall be amended as set forth below.

1. Section 3 “Compensation and Payment”.

A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to Consultant, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules set forth in this Amendment No. 1. The total combined compensation for the Original Agreement and Task Order No. 1 shall be increased by $197,355 for a maximum not to exceed amount of eight hundred seventeen thousand four hundred and one dollars ($817,401.00).

2. Section 4 “Time of Performance”. The services described in Task Order No. 1 along with the addition of work attached hereto as Exhibit A shall be completed by September 30, 2028.
"ATTACHMENT 2" 5.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 2-Amendment No.1 to Task Order No. 1 (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement

Page 2 ends

3. Agreement in Effect. All other provisions of the Original Agreement and Task Order No. 1 not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 as of the date first written above.

CITY OF PACIFICA CONSULTANT
Cotton, Shires & Associates
By: By:

Kevin Woodhouse David T. Schrier
City Manager CEO
ATTEST:

By: __________________
Sarah Coffey
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Michelle M. Kenyon
City Attorney

5.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 2-Amendment No.1 to Task Order No. 1 (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement Page
3 EXHIBIT A
SCOPE& COMPENSATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1

5.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment 2-Amendment No.1 to Task Order No. 1 (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 646 University Avenue 6417 Dogtown Road 699 Hampshire Road, Suite 102 Los Gatos, CA 95032 San Andreas, CA 95249‐9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361‐2352 (408) 354‐5542 (209) 736‐4252 • Fax (209) 736‐1212 (805) 370‐8710 www.cottonshires.com
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2024
E5158
By Email ([email protected])
Mr. Roland Yip

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, California 94044‐2506
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE

SCOPE AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL BUDGET
RE: 310 – 330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project Pacifica, California
Dear Mr. Yip:

The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recommended and anticipated future scope to complete the drawings and permit the project, and to request additional budget from the City of Pacifica (the City) for the on‐going 310 – 330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project. In the fall of 2018, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) and the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement for $620,046 to complete a geotechnical investigation, develop a bluff protection design, complete environmental documents, and coordinate permitting. CSA teamed with MIG to complete the environmental documents and coordinate permitting, and Mesiti‐Miller Engineering (MME) to undertake the structural design and prepare construction drawings. The project agreement terminated in September 2020.

CURRENT BUDGET STATUS
As of July 31, 2024 the following is our understanding of the budget status:

Firm Original Budget Amount Billed
Remaining
Budget
MIG $406,055 $377,437 $28,618
MME $74,968 $30,000 $45,000
CSA $139,023 $150,356 <$11,333>
Consequently, the Team has roughly $62,285 remaining in our original budget through July 31, 2024.
"ATTACHMENT 3" 5.c
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029

Page 2 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

We anticipate that the significant tasks still remaining include the following:
 Preparing 60%, 90% and 100% drawings and associated calculations;  Preparing and submitting permits with the various governing agencies;  Preparing construction cost estimates at 30%, 60%, and 90%;  Preparing a current topographic survey;
 Preparing a topographic survey at the CCC request prior to construction;  Completing a third party peer review of the investigation, design, plans at 30%, 60%, and 90%;
 Preparing a blufftop restoration plan;
 Preparing a SWPPP;
 Project management;
 Meetings; and
 Completing a beach nourishment alternatives analysis, if required.

UNANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENTS
The Project Team has adjusted to various unanticipated developments including the temporary suspension of the project for more than 1 year while the City evaluated options and looked for additional funding, the City’s decision to be the Lead Agency for the environmental permitting, and various additional requirements by the California Coastal Commission.

The following is a summary of the unanticipated developments impacting MIG’s budget and scope:

1. Preparation of a second Administrative Draft EIR in response to comments by the Coastal Conservancy. Review of the EIR by the Coastal Conservancy prior to its public distribution was not included in the original scope, and the responses to comments plus EIR revisions required a substantial effort.

The Responses to Comments included in the FEIR were expanded to address comments contained in multiple email messages to the Public Works Director from the Coastal Conservancy, several of which referenced issues that were brought up by the Coastal Conservancy prior to the formal public review period for the EIR.

2. Additional analysis and mitigation measure development for noise impacts in response to the City Attorney’s comments. MIG’s noise analysts completed additional work to revise the noise section of the Administrative Draft to respond to comments and propose additional measures to reduce construction noise impacts to neighbors. Our original scoping for the EIR assumed that because pile driving was not anticipated

5.c
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029

Page 3 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
to be required for construction of the seawall, detailed noise modeling was not proposed in the scope of work and noise associated with construction activities would be qualitatively evaluated.

3. Analysis of an additional project alternative. The original EIR scope included analysis of three alternatives. The final direction from the City was to include four. This required additional time and resources to research and prepare.

The following is a summary of the unanticipated developments impacting CSA’s and MME’s budget and scope:

1. As requested by the City, the Project Team (MME and CSA) prepared a construction cost estimates in December 2019 ($10.7 million) and assisted in the CalOES estimate in 2021 ($13.6 million). Consequently, we have exhausted our cost estimating budget.

2. CSA has also been providing beyond budget Project Management services for the past four years (when our agreement officially terminated) including, but not limited to attending City Council Meetings, preparing and presenting PowerPoint presentations, supporting the removal of the remanent wall including a site visits, meeting with the City attorney regarding eminent domain of 330 Esplanade and preparing a letter regarding limits of the wall, preparing memos to respond to CCC comments, reviewing the EIR and supporting documents, participating in meeting, and providing consultation.

As a result of these unanticipated delays and tasks, and the expiration of the original contract, the Project Team does not have sufficient remaining budget to complete the anticipated remaining tasks. The Project Team proposes to enter into a new contract with the City and incorporate an updated scope and budget.

ANTICIPATED REMAINING TASKS
Based on discussions with the City, MIG, and MME, the Project Team does not have sufficient budget to complete the anticipated and recommended remaining tasks.

In the following sections we list and describe the anticipated and recommended remaining tasks for the project:

1. Complete the Design, Calculations and Prepare 60% and 90% and 100% Drawings – MME will prepare 60%, 90%, and 100% design, drawings and supporting calculations. CSA will provide support and an updated topographic survey (see Item No. 4) for a base map.

5.c
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029

Page 4 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

2. Permitting – MIG will review and update permit applications to reflect information that came out of the CEQA process. Then the City staff will need to review these applications, and MIG will revise them as needed, before they can be submitted.

3. Construction Cost Estimates at 30%, 60% and 90% ‐ Based on the highly volatile construction environment right now, due in part to supply chain issues of construction materials, and to assist the City with budgeting and financing the project, we recommend that the City authorize CSA to contract with a specialty estimating firm (MCK Americas) to prepare construction cost estimates based on the 30%, 60%, and 90% MME plans. CSA has contacted a Cost Estimator with local experience in estimating similar projects.

4. Current Topographic Survey ‐ Based on conversations with the City, we agree that a current topographic survey should be prepared to capture the current site conditions, including the southern extent of the new Ocean Breeze retaining wall.

Note that a significant delay between the completion of design plans and the start of construction may necessitate additional surveys.

5. Topographic Survey Per CCC Request – The California Coastal Commission is requesting a topographic survey of the beach area with a point every 15 feet. Note that a significant delay between design plan preparation and construction may necessitate an additional survey if requested by the CCC.

6. Third Party Peer Review – CSA has contacted a design firm with coastal engineering experience (Anchor QEA), and received a proposal to complete a third‐party peer review of the investigation, design, and drawings at 30%, 60%, and 90%.

7. Prepare a Blufftop Restoration Plan – MIG will prepare a blufftop restoration plan including Preliminary Landscape Restoration Drawings, Final Design Documents, and Bid and Construction Support;

8. Prepare a SWPPP – Unfortunately, MIG no longer has in‐house expertise to prepare a SWPPP. Consequently, the cost to prepare a SWPPP was not included in our costs.

9. Project Management – CSA will continue to provide project management, including reviewing documents prepared by MIG and MME, reviewing documents provided by the City, coordinate the construction cost estimates,

5.c
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029

Page 5 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
coordinate the third‐party peer review, prepare invoices, and pay MIG, MME, and the other subs. Our Project Management estimate is based on an assumption that the project will be completed in 12 months, and CSA will provide an average of 3 hours per month of project management services.

10. Meetings – CSA has budgeted for 16 hours of Senior Principal hours.

11. Beach Nourishment Source Alternative Analysis ‐ CSA has contacted a design firm with coastal engineering experience (Anchor QEA), and received a proposal to complete a beach nourishment source alternatives analysis, in the event that this analysis is required by the CCC.

12. CSA Project Management Service Past Four Years – As previously described, CSA as been providing beyond budget Project Management service for the past four years.

FEE
Based on the attached 2024 Schedule of Charges, and a time‐and‐expenses basis, we estimate the following fees for the corresponding tasks will be:

Task Estimated Additional Requested

1. – Complete 60%, 90% and 100% Drawings
(CSA/MME) ($2,275+$69,200‐$45,000) $26,475

2. – Permitting (CSA/MIG) ($9,596‐$4,000) $5,596

3. – Construction Cost Estimates at 30%, 60% and 90% (MCK) $35,746

4. – Current Topographic Survey (CSA) $10,806

5. – Topographic Survey to Conform to CCC Request (CSA) $11,406

6. – Third Party Peer Review (Anchor QEA) $29,994

7. – Prepare Blufftop Restoration Plan (MIG) ($44,070‐$24,618) $19,452

8. – Prepare a SWPPP N/A

9. – Project Management (CSA) $12,600

10. – Meetings (CSA) $5,600

11. – Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis (Anchor) $28,347

5.c
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029

Page 6 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

12. – Beyond Budget for CSA Services Past Four Years (CSA) $11,333 Total $197,355
As we previously indicated, the Project Team has approximately $62,285 of remaining budget, ($45,000+$4,000+$24,618‐$11,333 = $62,285) which is reflected in the above column in the italic’s numbers. We request an additional $197,355 to our initial $620,046 budget for a project total of $817,401 complete the anticipated and recommended remaining tasks for the project, as well as a beach nourishment analysis, if required by CCC.

Please note that CSA will be using our 2024 rates for the remaining portion of this amended agreement, and will charge mileage at the current accepted Federal reimbursement rate. CSA will charge a 5% service fee for the sub‐contracted estimator and peer reviewer (and beach nourishment analysis), but not for MME or MIG. Also note that the $62,285 remaining budget will be reduced by any work in progress in August 2024.

LIMITATIONS
Our services consist of professional opinions and conceptual recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering geology and geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, or merchantability or fitness, is made in or intended connection with our work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.

If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.

Very truly yours,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
MC:TP:DTS
Attachment: Schedule of Charges 2024; Project Involvement Spread Sheet; Project Budget Estimate Spread Sheet; MIG Budget Status letter; Proposal from MCK Americas; Proposal from Anchor QEA

5.c
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
January 2024
Personnel Charges
Senior Principal Engineer/Geologist/Geophysicist $ 350/hr Principal Geologist/Engineer $ 295/hr
Supervising Geologist/Engineer $ 240/hr
Senior Geologist/Engineer $ 215/hr
Senior GIS Specialist $ 195/hr
Senior Staff Geologist/Engineer $ 185/hr
Staff Geologist/Engineer $ 165/hr
Field/Laboratory Technician $ 140/hr*
Clerical/Accounting $ 100/hr
Equipment, Mileage and Copying Charges
Downhole/Culvert Camera Inspection Equipment………….. $ 250/day Drone System $ 240/day
Inclinometer System $ 240/day
Piezometer Data Acquisition System $ 125/day
Total Station Surveying Equipment $ 360/day
GPS Surveying Equipment $ 460/day
Compaction Testing Moisture/Unit Weight Gauge $ 175/day Rope Climbing Safety Equipment $ 295/day
Multi-Channel Seismograph System and ReMi $ 350/day
NearMap Aerial Photographs $ 215/site
Vehicle Mileage (or Current IRS Approved Rate) $ 0.67/mi Aircraft Mileage (or Current GSA Approved Rate) $1.76/nmi Photocopying (B&W-Color) $0.25-0.60/copy
Engineering (Large Format) Copier $ 0.65/ft2
Computer Assisted Color Plotting $ 16/sq. ft.

Expert Witness Consultation Charges
Expert witness testimony for court appearances and binding arbitrations shall be charged on a daily basis (minimum one-half day increments) at a rate of $4,800 per day. Deposition testimony shall be charged at a rate of $600 per hour (minimum one hour charge). Preparation time for depositions or court appearances shall be charged on a time-and-expenses basis in accordance with the Personnel, Equipment, Mileage, Copying and Expense charges listed herein.

Laboratory Testing and Geophysical Services Charges
Laboratory testing and geophysical services shall be charged on a time-andexpenses basis in accordance with the Personnel, Equipment, and Expense charges listed herein.

Laboratory samples shall be stored for 60 days after the date of final report submittal unless special arrangements and fees are agreed upon for longer storage.

Prevailing Wage Charges
* Field and/or laboratory personnel on public works projects subject to Prevailing Wage requirements will be invoiced at the rate of $185/hr.

Expense Charges (Receipted Costs Plus 15%)
• Travel expenses including air fare, lodging, vehicle rental, etc. (either actual receipted costs plus 15% for meals or a flat subsistence charge of $80 per diem for overnight stay shall be charged in addition to the lodging cost)
• Excavation subcontractors and expendable field supplies (inclinometer casing, piezometers, stakes, paint, etc.).
• Reproduction of drawings
• Photograph printing
• Special fees, permits, insurance, etc.
• Special mail service (air, electronic, courier, etc.) • Special equipment rental
• Special consultant fees

5.c
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Cotton, Shires & Associates
Date: August 30, 2024PROJECT INVOLVEMENT
Personnel Hours by Task Subtask Cost
David Schrier
Andrew Mead
CSA
Supervising
CSA Senior
Staff
CSA Staff
Sam Nolan
Task I - Complete the Design, Calculations and Prepare 60%, 90% and 100% -Respond to Question and Support MME 6.5 $ 2,275.00 Task II - Permiting -Review Documents and Support MIG $ -Task III - Construction Cost Estimates at 30%, 60% and 90% -Job Walk/Site Meeting 4 $ 1,400.00 Respond to Question and Support MCK 8 $ 2,800.00
Task IV - Current Topographic Survey -Coordinate Survey 4 $ 660.00 Topographic Survey 16 16 $ 5,600.00
Prepare Electronic Base Map 88 $ 3,680.00
Task V - Topographic Survey per CCC Request -Coordinate Survey 4 $ 660.00 Topographic Survey 16 16 $ 5,600.00
Prepare Electronic Base Map 88 $ 3,680.00
Task VI - Third Party Peer Review -Job Walk/Site Meeting 4 $ 1,400.00 Respond to Question and Support Achor QEA 8 $ 2,800.00
Task VII - Prepare Blufftop Resoration Plan -Review Plans and Support MIG $ - Task VIII - Project Management -Project Management 36 $ 12,600.00 Task IX - Meetings -Prepare For and Attend Video Conference Meeting 16 $ 5,600.00 Task X - Sand Nourishment Analysis -Complete a Sand Nourishment Analysis if Required 6 $ 2,100.00 Totals 88.5 16 0 32 56 0 $50,855.00
Senior Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer P.E., G. E.

Principal Engineering
Geologist, P.G.,
C.E.G.

Supervising
Geologist/Engineer
Senior Staff
Geologist/Engineer
Staff
Geologist/Engineer
Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer, P.E., G.E.

Project Name: 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure PreservationProject Number: E5158 Task

5.c
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval Cotton, Shires and Associates
I. Personnel Costs
Professional Staff Hours Rate Total
David Schrier 88.5 350.00 $ $30,975.00
Andrew Mead 16 295.00 $ $4,720.00
CSA Supervising 0 215.00 $ $0.00
CSA Senior Staff 32 185.00 $ $5,920.00
CSA Staff 56 165.00 $ $9,240.00
Sam Nolan 0 295.00 $ $0.00
Subtotal $50,855.00
II. Direct Costs Units/Miles Rate
Travel 1000 0.67 $ $665.00
MME - Structural 1 69,200.00 $ $69,200.00
MIG - Permit/Envirmonmental 1 53,666.00 $ $53,666.00
MCK - Cost Estimator 1 29,980.00 $ $31,479.00
Anchor QED - Third Party Rev/Sand 1 49,500.00 $ $51,975.00 Total Station 2 300.00 $ $600.00
Photogrammetry 1 600.00 $ $600.00
Drone 2 300.00 $ $600.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal: $208,785.00
III. Fee For Remaining Work $259,640.00
IV. Remaining Budget $62,285.00
V. Additional Requested Budget $197,355.00
Project Number: E5158
Project Name: 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation

PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE
Date: August 30, 2024

5.c
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the August 6, 2024
David Schrier
Cotton Shires & Associates
646 University Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95032
Subject: Pacifica Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project MIG Budget Status Dear David:

Per the City of Pacifica’s request, MIG is providing a current budget status for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation project, which we have had the pleasure of working on with Cotton Shires and the City since 2018. We last provided an update in 2022. The project EIR was recently completed, and we are preparing to submit the permit applications to the City for final review prior to submitting them to the California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

To date we have completed the technical studies, a preliminary bluff top restoration plan, the environmental documentation, and draft project permits. MIG had initially prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and then was asked to convert that to an Environmental Impact Report. We had estimated the cost to do that and determined that the existing budget could cover the cost if we shifted funds between tasks. The City was not yet prepared to approach the Council for additional funding, so we proceeded under those terms, and updated the budget in 2022.

The amount billed through 7/31/24 is shown below. This reflects 2022 billing rates. It does not reflect charges incurred beyond 7/31/24.

MIG Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project Budget Billed as of 7/31/2024 Project Phase Project Budget JTD Billed (As
of 7/31/22)
Inv# 87003
(June 2024)
Inv# 87410
(July 2024)
Total Billed (as
of 7/31/24)
Balance
Remaining (as of
7/31/24)
% Phase
Completed
1: Project Planning, Team Meetings, & Management (1.1) $47,114 $29,237.31 $96.25 $1,808.75 $43,861.06 $3,252.94 93.10% 2: 2.1 Conceptual Design Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $4,105 $4,105.00 $4,105.00 $0.00 100.00% 3: 3.1 Preliminary Design Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $3,178 $3,177.50 $3,177.50 $0.50 100% 4: 4 Env Documentation Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $111,871 $111,869.68 $111,869.68 $1.32 100% 6: 6 Project Permitting Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $51,368 $51,367.50 $51,367.50 $0.50 100% 11: Technical Studies (2) $3,190 $0.00 $0.00 $3,190.00 0% 12: Environmental Documentation (3) $113,704 $0.00 $3,787.50 $320.00 $155,837.74 -$42,133.74 137% 13: Blufftop Restoration (4) $45,480 $0.00 $1,410.00 $44,070.00 3% 14: Project Permits: 404, 401, CDP (6) $15,405 $0.00 $5,808.75 $9,596.25 38% 15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (7) $10,640 $0.00 $0.00 $10,640.00 0% Total Budget ($406,055) $406,055 $199,756.99 $3,883.75 $2,128.75 $377,437.23 $28,617.77 93%

5.c
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the David Schrier, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.

August 6, 2024
MIG 2 , Inc.

As you can see, the EIR process resulted in a budget overrun of $42,133.74. This is largely due to three out of scope tasks that were completed:

2. Additional analysis and mitigation measure development for noise impacts in response to the City Attorney’s comments. Our noise analysts completed additional work to revise the noise section of the Administrative Draft to respond to comments and propose additional measures to reduce construction noise impacts to neighbors.

3. Analysis of an additional project alternative. The original EIR scope included analysis of three alternatives. The ϐinal direction from the City was to include four. This required additional time and resources to research and prepare.

In addition, responses to some of the agency comments from the Coastal Commission and CDFW on the Public Draft EIR required additional research and impact analysis, such as the rates of bluff retreat, effectiveness of the proposed armoring, project effects on sand supply on the beach, and bank swallow habitat impacts.

The following MIG tasks are yet to be completed:
 Blufftop Restoration. The blufftop restoration includes a 4.1 Draft Concept Drawing ($10,245), 4.2 Preliminary Landscape Restoration Drawings ($12,050), 4.3 Final Design Documents ($12,765) and 4.4 Bid and Construction Support ($10,420). The total cost estimate is $45,480. So far we have prepared the concept drawing for the EIR at a cost of $1,410. The estimated cost to complete this, using 2022 rates, is $44,070.  Permit Applications. The permit applications need to be reviewed and updated by MIG to reϐlect information that came out of the CEQA process. Then the City staff should review these applications, we can revise them as needed, and they can be submitted. The $9,596 remaining in this task should cover submittal, but may not cover additional agency meetings and negotiations.

We are also scoped to do the SWPPP for $10,640. MIG does not currently have practitioners available for this task, so it is not included in this request for budget amendment.

In summary, MIG needs $44,070 (blufftop restoration plan), plus $9,596 (permit revision and submittal), for a total of $53,666. The remaining budget (as of today’s date 8/6/24) is $28,618.

Subtracting that from $53,666 results in $25,048 as the additional budget needed to complete the blufftop restoration and submitting the permit applications. I suggest adding $5,000 to that

5.c
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the David Schrier, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.

August 6, 2024
MIG 3 , Inc.
total (to $30,048) if the City needs MIG to attend meetings and correspond with the resource agencies once the permits are submitted.

Please let me know if there are any questions.

Sincerely,
Taylor Peterson
Director of Biological Analysis

5.c
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the MCK Americas Inc.
150 Executive Park Blvd., Suite 2150
San Francisco, CA 94134
415.656.3264
mckinc.net
July 17, 2024
David Schrier,
City of Pacifica 310-330 Esplanade Seawall Estimating Services Dear David,
Please find our proposal for providing cost estimating services for the City of Pacifica 310-330 Esplanade Seawall project. As discussed, the effort below is for project support during the design development of the project and will be performed on a time and material basis. We’re open to discussing the proposal if you have any questions or concerns. Upon approval, we are prepared to begin the assignment.

5.c
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Please contact me at 845-548-62810 if you have any questions regarding this proposal.

Warm Regards,
Nate Gavzy
Executive Vice President
MCK Americas Inc.

5.c
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the August 30, 2024
33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, California 94105 DRAFT 415.230.0862
David Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc.
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030
Re: 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project: Seawall Peer Review and Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis
Dear Mr. Schrier,
Anchor QEA appreciates the opportunity to submit this scope of work and cost estimate to conduct a seawall peer review and beach nourishment alternatives analysis for the City of Pacifica’s (City) 310- 330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (Figure 1). MME Civil + Structural Engineering (MME) is completing the seawall design and CSA is providing the associated geotechnical engineering. Anchor QEA’s peer review will provide a concept design review, value engineering analysis, high-level constructability review, and constructability and technical reviews of the seawall design at specified 30%, 60% and 90% design stages. At the time of this proposal, MME is at the 30% design stage for the seawall. The resulting peer review documentation, as well as the beach nourishment alternatives analysis, will be used in permit applications discussions with the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

The buildings located at 310, 320 and 330 Esplanade Avenue were condemned by the City and removed between 2016 and 2017. CSA’s 2019 Geotechnical Investigation characterized the physical and geological setting, evaluated the site conditions and hazards and provided design recommendations for the construction of a seawall. CSA estimated a bluff retreat rate of 2.7 feet per year for a total of 200 feet between 1943 and 2017, increasing recently to 5.4 feet per year between 2004 to 2017. The City of Pacifica aims to slow the coastal bluff retreat and protect remaining infrastructure (i.e. public street and underground utilities) along Esplanade Avenue with the construction of a seawall at the adjacent cliffs.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published in May 2024, and described the proposed seawall to include a buried sheet pile wall at the toe of the bluff, a cap beam on top of the sheet pile wall, and a shotcrete wall secured to the bluff face with tieback rods/tendons drilled into the bluff face. The shotcrete wall is approximately 650 feet long, extends to an elevation of 40 feet above sea level, which is approximately a height of 26 feet above the toe of the bluff. The seawall’s design life is expected to be 30 years. The project includes removing loose debris against the bluff and existing

5.c
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the August 30, 2024

Page 2 ends

riprap on the beach, as well as constructing a trail, fencing, signage, and native plant landscaping on the blufftop. Beach nourishment was eliminated during the alternatives analysis of the project.

Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Proposed Tasks
This proposed scope of work includes the primary tasks outline in the following subsections.

Task 1. Seawall Peer Review
Anchor QEA proposes to perform reviews of the seawall at 30%, 60%, and 90% design phases. At the 30% design level, we recommend a concept design review and value engineering analysis of the proposed seawall design. Anchor QEA proposes to perform a high-level constructability review at 60% design. Lastly at the 90% design level, we recommend constructability and technical reviews of the seawall design.

Task 1.1: 30% Design Peer Review
Anchor QEA will perform a concept design review and value engineering analysis of the 30% seawall design documents. These documents are expected to include a basis of design report/narrative, plans, geotechnical recommendations report, and a coastal/hydraulics report. We assume our scope will not include reviewing technical specifications or structural calculations for this submittal.

Anchor QEA will participate in a kick-off meeting at the start of this review phase and a debrief meeting at the end.

5.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the August 30, 2024

Page 3 ends

Task 1.2: 60% Design Peer Review
Anchor QEA will perform a high-level constructability review of the 60% seawall design documents.

These documents will only include the plans and structural calculations at this phase of design. We assume our scope will not include reviewing any additional documents at this phase of design.

Anchor QEA will participate in a kick-off meeting at the start of this review phase and a debrief meeting at the end.

Task 1.3: 90% Design Peer Review
Anchor QEA will perform a constructability review and technical review of the 90% design documents. These documents will include a basis of design report/narrative, plans, technical specifications, geotechnical recommendations report, and a coastal/hydraulics report.

Anchor QEA will participate in a kick-off meeting at the start of this review phase and a debrief meeting at the end.

Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include the following:
• All kick-off and debrief meetings will be virtual and no longer than 1-hour for each meeting.
• A detailed quality assurance check will not be performed as part of the constructability and technical reviews for the 90% design review.
• Back up calculations to confirm seawall design will not be performed as part of the technical review for the 90% design.

Deliverables
Deliverables for Task 1 are as follows:
• 30% Brief memo and comment log
• 60% Brief memo and comment log
• 90% Brief memo and comment log
Task 2. Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis
The CCC commented on the Draft EIR in November 2023, stating in their comments that the sand replenishment alternative noted in the Draft EIR should be evaluated in more depth for the selected project, given that CCC states the proposed project would cut off the sand supply to the beach fronting the toe of the bluff. Because CCC requires mitigation for adverse impacts on sand supply, the City would benefit from identifying feasible beach nourishment source alternatives, or the justification for the lack thereof, at early stages of design.

5.c
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the August 30, 2024

Page 4 ends

Beach nourishment has been evaluated numerous times in Pacifica at various locations, with or without offshore retention structures. There are various approaches the City could authorize in response to CCC comments and more recent communications Anchor QEA may not be aware of.

Anchor QEA could perform a coastal analysis similar to that performed for Beach Boulevard to estimate the target beach width for coastal hazard protection, the volume of sand required to achieve this beach width, the frequency of re-nourishment events required to maintain a minimum beach width, and the persistence and longevity of beach nourishment with and without offshore retention structures. This analysis assumes that a suitable sand source is identified and remains consistent for the project lifespan, i.e. 30 years.

Alternatively, or additionally, the City could assume the desired quantity of beach-quality sand will be more than what’s currently available nearby or economically feasible for the City. Knowing this, time and energy may best be directed to investigate unexplored partnerships or incentives the City could create to opportunistically receive sand-quality material, limited may it be presently. Anchor QEA could develop a brief list of potential paths forward, ranging from the most time-intensive largescale regional partnerships with US Army Corps of Engineers, to pilot studies with research agencies to place material with higher percentages of fines than typically approved on beaches (opening up other sources that may not have been considered in the past), or to developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for sediment suitability determinations to incentivize those with sand to place material at the beach project site instead of elsewhere. Each alternative has opportunities and constraints in cost, timing, and practical feasibility.

Anchor QEA proposes to have an initial kick-off to discuss these possible approaches with the City, then potentially in partnership with the CCC, to determine the best path forward for the City to obtain CCC’s future permit approval. Anchor QEA would review the available online documentation and previous studies provided by the City. For estimated Anchor QEA costs in this proposal, Anchor QEA will summarize up to four potential sources or actions the City could take to encourage or enable future beach nourishment at the project site.

Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include the following:
• The kick-off and comment review meeting will have a virtual option and be no longer than 1-hour for each meeting.
• This task does not include coastal modeling, data collection, field assessment, or survey work.
• Costs will be discussed relative to other source alternatives. • This task includes up to 100 hours total of Principal, Senior Managing, Senior and Staff Coastal Engineers; including 24 hours for a Senior Managing Coastal Engineer and 48 hours for a Senior Coastal Engineer.

5.c
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the August 30, 2024

Page 5 ends

Deliverables
Deliverables for Task 2 are as follows:
• Draft Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis Memo • Final Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis Memo Estimated Costs
Estimated costs for Tasks 1 and 2 are summarized below.

Table 1
Estimated Costs
Task No. Description Estimated Cost
1 Peer Review $ 24,500
2 Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis $ 25,000 Total $ 49,500
Schedule
The kick-off meeting is anticipated to occur within two weeks of notice to proceed from the City.

Anchor QEA will provide the peer review brief memo and comment log within 2 weeks of receiving each design submittal. The Draft Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis Memo will be provided within one month after the kick-off meeting with the City and instruction is provided by the CCC if the City wishes for their input on approach. City comments will be incorporated into the Final Memo within two weeks of receival. The project duration will depend on the seawall design; but is anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2024.

Anchor QEA appreciates the opportunity to provide this scope to support CSA and the City. If you have questions regarding this effort, please do not hesitate to contact Megan Collins at (415) 361- 5149 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Megan Collins, PE
Project Manager / Senior Managing Coastal Engineer

5.c
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment 3- Summary of Future Scope and Request for Additional Budget (5758 : Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Direction to Pacifica Voting Delegate Regarding CalCities 2024 Annual Conference Resolution Packet
RECOMMENDED 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Pacifica is a member of CalCities (formerly the League of California Cities), an association based in Sacramento that represents the interests of California's cities to the state legislature and provides cities with information on federal and state legislative and administrative affairs.

The CalCities 2024 Annual Conference is being held in Long Beach, October 16 - 18, 2024. The business meeting will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, October 18, 2024 in the Long Beach Convention Center. At this meeting CalCities membership will consider and take action on one resolution that will be considered to take action on proposed Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels as submitted by the City of Glendora.

CalCities has provided the 2024 Proposed ResolutionPacket (Attachment A) for consideration.

There were no additional resolutions submitted by the August 17 deadline for consideration at the League of California Cities 2024 Annual Conference General Assembly.

At its meeting on September 9, 2024, the Pacifica City Council selected Councilmember Boles as the voting delegate and Councilmember Bigstyck as the designated alternate for the General Assembly meeting to be held on Friday, October 18, 2024 at the CalCities 2024 Annual Conference at which the Resolution will be considered and voted upon.

The CalCities 2024 Resolution Packet (provided as Attachment A) includes information on the resolution process and voting procedures, the full text of the proposed resolution, background information, a summary of the League of California Cities staff analysis of the proposed resolution, and five letters of concurrence from Mayors of the cities Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, Azusa, Arcadia and La Verne. Specifically, the Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
6 Packet Pg. 174
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
"The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into any law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution." As provided in the Resolution and CalCities' staff analysis, examples of such rules or regulations already in place that apply to local city elected officials that do not otherwise also apply to elected officials of the State of California include:

1. California's open meeting rules as codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code, Chapter 9, Sec. 54950 et. seq.), whereas the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act covers all state boards and commissions, and Government Code Sec. 9027 governs the State Legislature;

2. "One-off" exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");

3. Rules in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439 (Glazer), amending the Political Reform Act, aimed at preventing "pay-to-play" practices by prohibiting parties, participants and agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use from contributing more than $250 to an officer of an agency during a 12-month period;

4. Rules in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571 (Mullin), that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office, which allows for a city to elect to have "no" campaign contribution limit or establish its own contribution limits.

The City Manager recommends that Pacifica's voting delegate communicate the City of Pacifica's position on the proposed resolution as follows: Support.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may alternatively direct Pacifica's voting delegate to Disapprove or Take No Action on the resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels as submitted by City of Glendora.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 175
2023-2024

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Daniel T. Parra
Mayor
Fowler
First Vice President
Lynne Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Second Vice President
Gabe Quinto
Council Member,
El Cerrito
Immediate Past President
Ali Sajjad Taj
Mayor Pro Tem,
Artesia
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 28, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, and City Clerks RE: Cal Cities 2024 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the Aug. 17 deadline.

The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, supporting letters from city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process.

We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a city position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.

Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Sept. 25. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The Cal Cities 2024 General Assembly will be held Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. in the Long Beach Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.

6.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024
Resolutions
Packet

6.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
Information on 2024 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, the Cal Cities President has referred the submitted resolution to the Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee. The committee will meet on Oct. 3 at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Oct. 17 at 1:30 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consists of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. to consider any qualified resolutions. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked-in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Oct. 17. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page four of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked-in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 6.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 2 6.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The below table shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 3 6.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. It an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
4 6.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
2024 Resolution

1. Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels submitted by City of Glendora
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
ii. Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
iii. Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
iv. Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
v. John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes • Referred to Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
5 6.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Fair and Equal
Treatment of All Governmental
Officials at All Levels submitted by
City of Glendora
6 6.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE

FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS AT ALL

LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Source: City of Glendora
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
City Officials: April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia; Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa; Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne; Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita; John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Referred to: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy Committee
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities objects to the practice of the California Legislature of imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California; and WHEREAS, examples of such rules or regulations that apply to local city elected officials that do not otherwise apply to the elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:

California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq., which purport to “declare[] that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly,” but which limits its application to “local agencies,” but not including elected officials of the State of California; Creating “one-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which purportedly requires all government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project in order to demolish and then rebuild State offices for the Governor and other State officials; 7 6.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
Adopting rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”), by removing the exception for local elected officers from contribution limits requiring disqualification on development project decisions,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
Adopting rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office, including, but not limited to: prohibiting the making a contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject to the AB 571; requiring a candidate that has qualified as a committee to establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for each specific office; prohibiting a candidate from redesignating a committee for one election for another election.

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities now calls upon the Governor and the California Legislature to adopt a policy, practice, and procedure requiring, in their legislative activities, that “what applies to one applies to all.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2024 in Long Beach, California, that the League calls upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.” 8 6.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
9 6.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference July 10, 2024
The City Council of Glendora
is proposing the following resolution for consideration at the California League of Cities annual conference
on
October 18, 2024
Proposed Resolution: (“To ensure fairness and equal treatment for all government officials in California”)
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not approve, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
The following five city council members are in concurrence with their letters of support (attached):
✓ Mayor John Cruikshank, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
✓ Mayor Bill Uphoff, City of Lomita
✓ Mayor Robert Gonzales, City of Azusa
✓ Mayor April Verlato, City of Arcadia
✓ Mayor Tim Hepburn, City of La Verne
Please confirm receipt of this request.

Sincerely,
Michael Allawos
Council Member
City of Glendora
10 6.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 11 6.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 12 6.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 13 6.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 14 6.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 15 6.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
16 6.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Johnnie Pina, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Committee: Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Summary:

This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
Background:

This resolution states that examples of the California Legislature imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:
• California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq.;
• “One-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
• Rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”); and
• Rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office.

Ralph M. Brown Act
The California Attorney General’s (AG) Office defines The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) as what governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The AG’s office states the Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other.

The Ralph M. Brown Act governs local agencies, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act covers all state boards and commissions, and Government code 17 6.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference 9027 governs the state Legislature. The California Constitution also mandates open meetings for state agencies, boards, and commissions. Specifically, the Constitution requires that each local agency comply with the Brown Act (Article I, section 3(b)(7)): and that the proceedings of each house of the Legislature be open and public (with exceptions for employment matters; matters affecting security; confer with legal counsel; and to meet as a caucus (Article IV, section 7).

Although fairly detailed requirements apply to state agencies and other state bodies, they do not apply to the Legislature. The Legislature has Constitutional authority to adopt rules for its proceedings that are consistent with the requirement that the proceedings of each house and the committees be open and public.

Another notable difference between the Legislature and a city council is the ability for Legislators to have a caucus to discuss a bill, express how they will vote, and to count votes. This is not allowed under the Brown Act. One other difference is that the laws governing teleconferencing for members of the state Legislature is far less flexible than it is for local bodies. However, state agencies have more flexibility than locals in that regard.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
The Resolution cites the Legislature's action in exempting from CEQA the reconstruction of the State Capitol Annex building. The State Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970, establishing it as a public disclosure law for the environmental review of discretionary projects and a process for mitigating or avoiding potential environmental impacts.

SB 174 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 74, Statutes of 2024 was signed into law July 2, 2024. This bill exempts the work performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this example the Legislature exempted themselves as not being considered a “public agency,” “state agency,” or “lead agency” under CEQA. A lead agency under CEQA is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that is subject to CEQA.

Over the years, the Legislature has also created many CEQA exceptions and exemptions for local projects involving local agencies as well.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Senate Bill No. 1439
SB 1439 (Glazer) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 848, Statutes of 2022 amends section 84308 and is aimed at preventing "pay-to-play" practices, in part by prohibiting parties, participants, and their respective agents in a 18 6.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use from contributing more than $250 to an officer of an agency during a 12 month period. When the Levine Act was first enacted in 1982, Section 84308 applied to appointed members of boards and commissions who were running for elective office. SB 1439 expended this law to now apply to local elected officials. Since it is focused on permits and licenses, it now applies to State agencies and local agencies that approve permits and licenses. Section 84308 does not apply to the Legislature or the Courts. It is important to note that unlike local governments, neither issue permits and licenses.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Assembly Bill No. 571
AB 571 (Mullin) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 556, Statutes of 2019 established default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. This bill permitted a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

The Resolution cites AB 571 as an example of treating cities differently than the State. The Fair Political Practices Commission clarifies in their AB 571 fact sheet that under AB 571 a city may elect to have "no" contribution limit in which case the state contribution limit will not apply as a default for that jurisdiction. A city or county can set contribution limits higher than the default state limit, AB 571 sets a default in line with contributions Assembly Members and Senators if a city or county is silent on contribution limits.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown.

Existing Cal Cities Policy:

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe:
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility. The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities.
• Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy. The active participation of all city officials increases Cal Cities’ effectiveness.
19 6.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference • Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Comments:

Additional Examples
The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed many laws that apply to local governments and do not apply to the state or the state Legislature. This year AB 2561(McKinnor) was introduced, which requires local governments to present in a public meeting a detailed report about their vacancy rates and detailed information about their hiring practices. This is an attempt to address public sector vacancy rates. This bill does not apply to the state in a time when they are also dealing with high vacancy rates.

Additionally, there were several bills that aim to amend the Levine Act, which now applies to local elected officials, to make changes to SB 1439, referenced previously in the analysis. None of the bills would amend the law to be applicable to Assembly Members or Senators.

AB 817 (Pacheco), co-sponsored by Cal Cities tried to bring parity to the Brown Act by making the teleconference rules for state advisory bodies the same for local advisory bodies but the Legislature struck the bill down.

Applying to elected officials or to the legislative body? Legislature or the State? The resolution also states, “… applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate.”
This portion of the resolve clause is specifically speaking to local elected officials and State Assembly Members and Senators. However, many of the “where as” clauses are in reference to laws that apply to cities, the state and the Legislature as government agencies and not specifically to the elected officials on the governing bodies. For example, the Brown Act applies rules to the Legislative body and not the individual council member. Additionally, the city council as a whole is the lead agency under CEQA and not the individual council members.

Inherent Powers of the Legislative Branch
The resolution also states, “This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
It is unclear what inherent powers of the legislate branch under the California Constitution means in this context. The legislative branch does have the power 20 6.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference of preemption over cities and can state that a change in law is a matter of state wide concern. This allows the legislative branch to apply new laws or amend existing laws to apply to general law and charter cities. It seems like the last sentence of the resolve clause could negate the rest of the resolve clause if not clarified.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
21 6.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment A: 2024 CalCities Proposed Resolutions Packet (5752 : League of CA Cities (CalCities) 2024 Annual Conference

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of 1) Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP-179-22, Quarry Use Permit UP71-16, Variance PV-531-22, and Tree Permit TP-1-22 (File No. 2016-001); and 2) Waive the First Reading and Introduce of Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the PDX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-

4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018- 150-150)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Adopt a Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP‐179‐22, Quarry Use Permit UP‐71‐16, Variance PV‐531‐22, and Tree Permit TP‐1‐22 (File No. 2016‐001); and

2. Waive the First Reading and Introduce Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the P-DX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
STAFF CONTACT:

Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director, Community Development Department (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Acting Deputy Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
7 Packet Pg. 199
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
A. INTRODUCTION
The Rockaway Quarry is composed of two parcels: the 47.13-acre Quarry Parcel to the west and the 39.09-acre Eastern Parcel located adjacent to and directly west of SR 1 and south/east of Calera Creek. The Calera Creek channel runs in a general north-south direction on a separate 17.2-acre parcel between the Quarry and the Eastern Parcels.

The Rockaway Quarry has a long history, starting in the mid-1700s, of limestone quarrying.

Operations ceased in 1987, and the site was partially filled with earth from the Vallemar Road cut. By 1993, the Eastern Parcel, used for mining support, was filled and cleared of quarryrelated structures. In 1996, the City of Pacifica bought 12 acres of the quarry’s northern edge to build the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. They relocated Calera Creek to a new 17.2-acre parcel and graded the Eastern Parcel, filling the old creek and restoring over seven acres of wetlands.

Reclamation activity, as currently proposed, would consist of minor site improvements such as grading for the access road and wetlands mitigation that are located on the Eastern Parcel. This Parcel would be reclaimed to include a complex of four tiered seasonal wetlands totaling 1.55 acres and a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-approved, clay-lined 0.20-acre pond. These features would mitigate for the loss of aquatic habitat due to the impacts from grading and filling on a man-made wetland (the quarry pond), located on the Quarry Parcel. In total, 1.75 acres of seasonal wetlands will be created.

B. BACKGROUND
The following section provides the relevant background information of the project that is being appealed.

SITE DESIGNATIONS:

General Plan: Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC) and Conservation (C) Current Zoning: C-3X/HPD/CZ (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) Proposed Zoning: P-DX/HPD/CZ (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) with Approved Development Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

This item consists of two appeals of the Planning Commission’s effective denial of an application for the reclamation of the Rockaway Quarry. The Council hears appeals de novo, namely as if hearing for the first time. Therefore, the City Council is also being asked to consider the overall project approvals for the proposed reclamation plan, as described below.

The current application is for a Revised Quarry Reclamation Plan, October 2023, which proposes to reclaim the former quarry by importing approximately 874,000 cubic yards of soil to restore the excavated quarry face and other areas to a pre-mining condition, establishing 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond, and constructing new unpaved recreational trails and drainage improvements throughout the reclaimed site. The applicant has proposed a Reduced Fill Alternative, as analyzed in the EIR, and described in more detail below.

The proposed reclamation activities would not include any changes in use or building construction on the project site. The site would be rezoned to the P-DX (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) zoning district from the existing C-3X (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) zoning district as required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay zoning district. The reclamation activities would also involve protected tree removal to allow reclamation grading activities to 7 Packet Pg. 200
Pacifica City Council 3
September 23, 2024
occur. The proposed reclamation activities would require a variance to exceed the coverage limitation for grading within the HPD overlay zoning district. The project site is located within the Coastal Zone – however, the site is not within the City of Pacifica’s Certified Local Coastal Program and an application for a Coastal Development Permit is being separately considered by the California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to the input from the Planning Commission and public comment at the March 18, 20241 2, Planning Commission Meeting and the May 20, 20243 4, Study Session, the Applicant has proposed an alternative to further reduce the amount of imported fill to approximately 583,000 CY, using the Reduced Fill Alternative described and analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR, Chapter 6) for the project (“Reduced Fill Alternative”) (Attachment C).

The Reduced Fill Alternative was presented to the Planning Commission on August 19, 20245 6, with further modifications proposed by City staff to provide for a phased grading of (1) 100,000 cubic yards for the first two years; (2) grading up to 200,000 over the first three years; and (3) up to a maximum of 583,000 cubic yards, which amount would be decreased based on the ultimate grading required for the Quarry site to develop in accordance with a Specific Plan prepared by the City, at applicant’s expense, or current General Plan land uses if a Specific Plan has not been prepared after four years. The Planning Commission effectively denied approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative.

As described below, the project remains generally unchanged from the Reduced Fill Alternative considered by the Planning Commission, although staff has modified and strengthened a number of the proposed conditions, as described below.

STATE AND CITY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RECLAMATION:

The Rockaway Quarry site is required to be reclaimed under both City and State statutory requirements. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”) contains numerous mining and reclamation obligations which are imposed on Quarry owners and operators (Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 2770 et seq.) The City’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (see Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-2.03, incorporates SMARA by reference.

The State has oversight over all mining and reclamation activities. For example, the State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Reclamation (“DMR”) has advisory authority over the review of reclamation plans. (PRC § 2772.1.)In this case, DMR reviewed the prior 970,000 cubic yard reclamation plan and determined that it was consistent with SMARA.

Further, unlike other City land use actions, the City Council’s action on the reclamation plan is not final. The State Mining and Geology Board (“SMGB”) has authority to hear appeals of the City’s action in the following circumstances:(1) failure to timely process a reclamation plan, namely if the City fails to act within 60 days between “successive steps”; or (2) the City fails to act according to due process or has relied on considerations not related to SMARA reclamation requirements in denying a reclamation plan.(14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) § 3650(a)(3)(b); PRC § 2770(e)). Here, if the City does not act in a timely manner or denies the reclamation plan without consideration of SMARA requirements, the City’s actions can be appealed to the SMGB. 1 March 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1635 2 March 18, 2024 Planning Commission Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=admme15GedU 3 May 20, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1639 4 May 20, 2024 Planning Commission Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlbEFuu0NZo 5 August 19, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Report:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1645 6 August 19, 2024: Planning Commission Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBfYn_XGCuE 7 Packet Pg. 201
Pacifica City Council 4
September 23, 2024
To initiate an appeal, the Applicant would first file an intent of notice to appeal with the SMGB and the SMGB would determine whether they have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. (14 CCR § 3651.)Here it is likely SMGB would find that they have jurisdiction in the event of a denial of a reclamation plan given that, among other things, DMR has already determined that the original 970,000 cubic yard reclamation plan meets SMARA requirements. At the hearing, the SMGB would be asked to determine whether the reclamation plan substantially meets the requirements set forth in SMARA, SMGB policy regulations and Pacifica’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (see 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 3659; PMC Section 9-2.01 et seq.)In the event that the SMGB determines that the City failed to act in accordance with due process or that the City did not comply with state reclamation requirements in denying the Reclamation Plan, SMGB could “approve” the Reclamation Plan. (PRC § 2770(g)(1)(A).)While, the SMGB does have authority to approve the Reclamation Plan, SMGB does not have authority to take final action on the Reclamation Plan as it is contingent on CEQA review and other discretionary actions that only the City can authorize. Thus, SMGB would remand the appeal to the City for final action on the Reclamation Plan pursuant to the directives provided in the SMGB decision on appeal.

Ultimately, the City does have an obligation to follow SMARA, and any SMGB decision following appeal as they have ultimate oversight over reclamation plans. Given that DMR has effectively approved a prior version of the reclamation plan, an appeal to SMGB could result in the approval of a reclamation plan with higher amounts of fill, in addition to the loss of local control in the implementation of reclamation plan. In summary, if the appeal is successful, the City might be forced to approve a reclamation plan, after initially denying it while losing the benefits of conditioning the plan to satisfy the publicly raised issues and concerns.

C. HISTORY OF RECLAMATION PROPOSALS:

Several Reclamation Plans have been proposed for the Rockaway Quarry in the past. The following table presents a snapshot of the Reclamation Plans proposed since 1996 and includes the June 2024 Reduced Fill Alternative shaded in blue for comparison purposes.

Quarry Reclamation Plans Comparison
N
o
.

Reclamation
Plan Year
Flat building
pads created
by reclamation
grading?
Earthworks Quantities
Total earthwork
on-site (CY) Cut (CY) Fill (CY) Net (CY) (Imported Fill) 1 10/28/19961,2 Yes 1,414,400 707,200 707,200 0
2 1/22/20163 Yes 216,000 108,300 107,700 600
Cut
3 4/5/2023 No 1,140,000 85,000 1,055,000 970,000
Fill
4 10/23/2023 No 1,014,000 70,000 944,000 874,000 Fill
5 6/28/20244 Yes 723,000 70,000 653,000 583,000 Fill

1. The 1996 Plan was proposed with Calera Creek in a different location on the Eastern Parcel. Upon the creek’s relocation and construction of the City-owned multi-purpose trail, the area of the Quarry Parcel was reduced by approximately 30% limiting available space for earthwork and soil engineering operations. 7 Packet Pg. 202
Pacifica City Council 5
September 23, 2024

2. A draft of a 1998 plan was located by the City for which only partial information is available. This plan also would not have imported fill and instead would have obtained material to fill reclamation areas by altering the existing topography of the site. Available details of this Plan are included in the March 18, 2024, staff report.

3. The 2016 Plan prepared by the current owner proposed development that did not get approved. Subsequent focus is to reclaim the Quarry to comply with SMARA requirements.

4. The Reduced Fill Alternative to the October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan.

PREVIOUS PLANS
Plan No. 3 and No. 4 in the table above, were prepared in April 2023 and October 2023 and presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearings on June 5, 2023, and March 18, 2024, respectively. The Figure below depicts the two above referenced proposals. As depicted in the figure, the Revised Reclamation Plan, October 2023, presented at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission hearing, resulted in a net reduction of 96,000 CY in imported fill.

April 2023 Reclamation Plan Proposal Vs. October 2023 Reclamation Plan Proposal April 2023 Reclamation Plan (presented June 5, 2023)
Salient Features of the April 2023 Plan are as follows:
• Reclamation of all mined lands.
• Elimination of the eroded and unvegetated mined lands. • Elimination of slopes steeper than 2:1, and removal of eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety.
• Grading to include 1,140,000 total cubic yards of earthwork with 85,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope.
• Preservation of the southern bluff at its current elevation while importing 970,000 cubic yards of fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and filling the quarry pit across to the main face up to an elevation of 150 feet. 7 Packet Pg. 203
Pacifica City Council 6
September 23, 2024
The plan aims to restore the quarry to its natural, pre-mining state, aligning with the surrounding topography. It includes trail improvements, wetland creation, revegetation, drainage, grading, dust control, and a detailed four-year phasing plan. The timeline is tentative, pending regulatory approvals. No development or flat pads are proposed.

The April 2023 Reclamation Plan as analyzed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) indicated that an average of 161 haul truck trips per day and ten employee trips per day would be generated based on the imported fill quantities associated with the subject plan. Haul truck traffic circulation in and out of the Quarry site would consist of inbound haul trucks coming from the north and accessing the project site from southbound State Route 1 through the Old Quarry Road connection, an existing dirt access road located about one-third mile south of Reina Del Mar Avenue; this access point is currently blocked by large boulders that would be removed as part of the access plan. Vehicles egress from the site would be accommodated at the existing traffic signal at State Route 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue. Trucks will turn left onto State Route 1 and return to the north via Interstate 280.

All the components of the April 2023 Reclamation Plan are described in detail in the project’s staff report, dated June 5, 20237, the April 2023 Reclamation Plan, and the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Environmental Impact Report8.

October 2023 Reclamation Plan (presented March 18, 2024) Revisions were made to the April 2023 Reclamation Plan in response to the Planning Commission and public comments and concerns. These concerns pertained primarily to imported fill and the criteria for such fill, air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effects of the project on biological resources, soil testing criteria of imported fill, potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff, haul truck traffic and trips, and cultural resources and need from tribal consultation. The October 2023 Reclamation Plan was presented at the Planning Commission hearing on March 18, 2024.

The October 2023 Reclamation Plan also proposed reclamation of all mined lands, elimination of the eroded and unvegetated mined lands, elimination of slopes steeper than 2:1, and removal of eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety. The slopes established by this Plan conform to the surrounding topography and are consistent with a natural open space hillside relevant to premining conditions. There is no development proposed with this plan and no flat pads are created. Salient features of this revised Plan (October 2023), presented at the Planning Commission’s public hearing on March 18, 2024, included:
• A reduction in the amount of grading and imported fill through a modification to the reclamation activities previously proposed for areas along and/or within the Quarry Parcel, including the East Flank, Calera Creek crossing, Calera Creek bank, Western Trail, Quarry Pit, and Quarry Face in the April 2023 Plan. • Grading in the amount of 1,014,000 total cubic yards of total earthwork with 70,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope.
• Preservation of the southern bluff at its current elevation while bringing 874,000 cubic yards of imported fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and filling the quarry pit across to the main face up to an elevation of 135, identified as a critical elevation at the quarry face, as described above.
• Provision of an ADA accessible path connecting the multi-use trail across to the northwesterly overlook point of the bluff.
7 June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Report and Minutes:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1541 8 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/community-development/planning-division/environmentaldocuments 7 Packet Pg. 204
Pacifica City Council 7
September 23, 2024
• Reduction in average haul truck trips from 161 trips per day to an average of 146 haul truck trips per day due to a reduction in imported fill. This represents a reduction of an average of 15 haul truck trips per day. The average employee trips per day would remain at an average of 10 trips per day. As part of the revised proposal, the Applicant committed to capping the maximum number of haul truck trips at 161 trips per day, prohibiting outbound trips during morning drop-off hours at Vallemar School and coordinating with the City and Pacifica School District on traffic and other issues during the course of the reclamation activities.

Other components included in the October 2023 Reclamation Plan in response to comments received at the June 3, 2023, Planning Commission hearing included:
• Exclusion of soil source sites in Santa Clara County for imported fill. • Expansion of soil screening to include routine, independent and third-party soil testing at the direction of the City, throughout the life of the project. • Water quality testing to ensure that Calera Creek is not affected by imported soils.

Should the testing indicate contamination, the revised Plan provided for improvements to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared as part of the revised Plan. • An updated Dust Control Plan consisting of dust mitigation measures to control fugitive dust emission generated by activities such as site grading, transporting and unloading of fill material, in accordance with applicable state and local laws through Best Management Practices (BMPs). This plan also includes monitoring procedures that allow for monitoring conditions related to potential fugitive using monitoring equipment including wind speed meters and air quality meters These meters would be located in the vicinity of the reclamation activity to monitor conditions so that corrective measures, including halting reclamation activity, can be taken, if required, to comply with applicable air quality standards.
• An “Adaptive Management Plan” involving a commitment from the Applicant to periodically meet with the City staff during the course of reclamation activities to address, among other matters, traffic management and any operational modifications needed to address ongoing traffic impacts that may be associated with reclamation activities.

While the October 2023 Reclamation Plan provided a new reduction in imported fill, several concerns were reiterated and raised by the commissioners and members of the public at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission public hearing. These comments/concerns are as follows:
• Extensive amount of project materials to review in a short period of time. • Quantity of foreign or imported soil proposed for the project and impacts of imported or foreign soil.
• The number of trucks trips and accommodation of seasonal variations, including winter and rains, with respect to truck trips, and grading management to account for traffic and stormwater impacts.
• Overall traffic impacts.
• Impact to soil/vegetation and marine habitats.
• Tribal cultural resource impacts, and
• Public Health and the environmental impacts.

The Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 6, 2024, to allow the applicant time to address the comments and concerns expressed at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission hearing. The May 6, 2024, hearing was later cancelled upon the Applicant’s request and replaced with a Planning Commission Study Session held on May 20, 2024. 7 Packet Pg. 205
Pacifica City Council 8
September 23, 2024
May 20, 2024, Study Session
The May 20, 2024, Study Session provided an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive responses from the Applicant to the questions raised at previous hearings, pose additional questions, and provide critical input on the path forward, principally with respect to the level of Planning Commission’s interest in a Reduced Fill Alternative proposed by the Applicant and Owner.

At the study session, the Owner of the project site took the opportunity to explain the criteria and reasons for the imported fill of 847,000 CY proposed for the October 2023 Reclamation Plan.

These criteria included grading design for the contours to conform to the surrounding topography in reclamation and make the site adaptable for alternative land uses such as trails and open space while anticipating that the site may never be developed anytime in the foreseeable future. The Plan was developed to meet the SMARA objectives and proposed stabilizing the quarry face at the height where major erosion was identified on the face of the quarry, as described above. This Plan assumed open space as the end use for the Quarry property, indefinitely, which, according to the Applicant, requires a large amount of fill.

In response to the concerns and comments expressed by the Planning Commission and public, the Applicant also presented the Reduced Fill Alternative for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the Study Session. This alternative would result in a reduction in the fill required for reclamation by assuming future development at the Quarry in accordance with the 2040 Pacifica General Plan. The Applicant further suggested proceeding with a phased reclamation of the former Quarry, in accordance with a reduced fill alternative, concurrently with a specific planning process for future development of the site. Overall, the discussion at the study session centered around direction, questions and concerns that are encapsulated as follows:
• The possibility for further reduction in imported fill to less amounts than proposed and/or maximizing native fill and/or zero import/foreign fill. • The origin of truck trips and traffic safety given the terrain off-site and other traffic concerns.
• Reclamation phasing and correspondence with the specific plan process. • Main purpose of a future specific plan and potential specific plan process. • The SMARA requirements and process.
• Rigorous soil testing and analysis for imported fill. • Tribal cultural resource impacts.
• Potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff.

Applicant’s Proposed Reduced Fill Alternative
In response to the input received by the public and Planning Commission, the applicant proposed a Reduced Fill Alternative on July 2, 2024.The Reduced Fill Alternative differs from both the April 2023 and the October 2023 Reclamation Plans, in that it proposes grading that would allow development in accordance with the current 2040 General Plan, with the possibility to lower the amounts of grading after City preparation of a Specific Plan. It does not include or rely on any specific future development proposal. The proposed Reduced Fill Alternative would entail the following:
• 723,000 total cubic yards of earthwork while obtaining 70,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope representing a further reduction in the amount of imported fill compared to the previous Reclamation Plans. • 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and filling the quarry pit up to a flat pad downgrade from the quarry face at an elevation of 135 to an elevation of 85 feet at a slope of 2:1, while preserving the southern bluff at its current elevation.
7 Packet Pg. 206
Pacifica City Council 9
September 23, 2024
As part of this proposal, the Applicant has offered to engage with the community and assist the City in the planning process to develop a City Initiated Specific Plan for the Quarry site, consistent with the goals of the City Council, which could further reduce the amount of imported fill. The Applicant proposes to limit the amount of imported fill for the reclamation to 400,000 cubic yards, subject to the approval of a Specific Plan for the Quarry site by 2027 and accordingly proposes to implement the Reduced Fill Alternative over four years.

Figure 1: The figure below compares the revised October 2023 Reclamation Plan and the proposed Reduced Fill Alternative, July 2, 2024.
7 Packet Pg. 207
Pacifica City Council 10 September 23, 2024
Figure 2: The figure below details a Preliminary Concept Plan that shows the grading associated with the Reduced Fill Alternative.

August 19, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
On August 19, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project, with a recommendation from staff to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative. During the public hearings with the Planning Commission, there were several concerns raised including the amount of imported fill, traffic, phasing of the reclamation and a future specific plan, SMARA requirements, testing, tribal cultural resources impacts, and water quality impacts. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 0-5-2 (Devine and Godwin absent) on a motion to approve the Specific Plan SP‐179‐22, Quarry Use Permit UP‐71‐16, Variance PV‐531‐22, and Tree Permit TP‐1‐22 (File No. 2016‐001); recommend approval to the City Council on Rezoning RZ‐210‐22 and Development Plan DP‐86‐22 (collectively referred to as “Development Permits”); and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for a reclamation plan to reclaim the former Rockaway Quarry including construction of public access trails, drainage infrastructure, and wetland mitigation areas, on two undeveloped parcel totaling approximately 86-acres (“Project”). While the Planning Commission did not vote to deny the Project, the unanimous “No” vote on the collective motion to approve with no further action from the Planning Commission is considered an effective denial.

D. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE DENIAL
Two appeals of the Planning Commission’s actions were filed, both of which are discussed below.

APPEAL FILED BY DAN STEGINK
On August 29, 2024, Dan Stegink timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission de facto denial of the 7 Packet Pg. 208
Pacifica City Council 11 September 23, 2024
Development Permits (Attachment D). Stegink cited four (4) reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below.

Basis 1. Felons involved should be barred from doing business in Pacifica.

Mr. Stegink argues that William Gilmartin and Alan Varela and their company were banned from doing business in San Francisco and property owner Paul Heule and his representative John Zentner pleaded guilty to chargers under the Endangered Species Act.

Staff Analysis:

The City is not able to prohibit any individual and/or entity from doing business in Pacifica.

Basis 2. Nothing in Quarry requires remediation or imported fill.

Mr. Stegink challenges that only a small portion of the Quarry is unsafe, the “Quarry Pit” is flat and thus does not require imported fill.

Staff Analysis:

Under State law, as discussed above, the property owner is required to reclaim the Quarry site, subject to SMARA and the City’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-2.01 and obtain a SMARA Compliance Review from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation.

Basis 3. Quarry is an Indigenous cultural asset worth of both California and National registration of Historic Places Designation.

Mr. Stegink states that the Native American village of Timigtac may have been located on the site of the Rockaway Quarry.

Staff Analysis:

Per the August 13, 20249 Memo by Raney Planning and Management, Inc., although the Rockaway Quarry does appear eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1 for its association with reconstruction efforts following the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, the resource does not demonstrate sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing on the registries. Archival research did not reveal information sources that can be used to reconstruct the operational processes, personnel, contracts, business relationships, revenue, or policies involved with shaping Rockaway Quarry. Field investigations revealed no significant historic-era features or materials. As such, the resource is recommended as not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP or CRHP under Criterion B/2, C/3, or D/4.

Basis 4. The EIR report is inadequate.

Mr. Stegink claims that the Biological Resources Report in the EIR fails to mention the presence of Western Pond turtles, California Red Legged frogs, and Endangered Species Act protected San Francisco Garter Snake.

Staff Analysis:

The EIR analyzes the potential for these species to be on site. The EIR states that the Project site does not contain suitable aquatic habit with ponds and basking areas that would support Western pond turtles. The EIR acknowledges two known detections of California Red-Legged frogs on the Project site and the Project includes restoration of a 0.20- acre California RedLegged frog pond. The EIR acknowledges that the San Francisco Garter Snake is known to occur on Project site. Additionally, there are mitigation measures in the EIR that require training of employees to identify these species during reclamation activities, conduct surveys prior to reclamation activities, and limit reclamation activities during known active times for both species. 9 https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1541 7 Packet Pg. 209
Pacifica City Council 12 September 23, 2024
Summary
For the reasons set forth above, staff recommends that the City Council deny Mr. Stegink’s appeal.

APPEAL FILED BY BAYLANDS SOIL PACIFICA, LLC (“BAYLANDS”) On August 27, 2024, Baylands timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission de facto denial of the Project (Attachment E). Baylands cited a number of reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below.

Basis 1. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial because it was not supported by substantial evidence.

Baylands contends that the Planning Commission’s decision should be overturned because it was decided without any findings to deny the Development Permits.

Staff Analysis:

The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits. Therefore, no findings were necessary. Further, the City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and will be making findings when they make their decision on the Development Permits.

Basis 2. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Project because the Commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence.

Baylands contends that Planning Commission’s denial was not based on substantial evidence and offered opinions not based facts.

Staff Analysis:

See discussion above under Basis 1.

Basis 3. The Planning Commissioner erroneously stated that they could not make the required findings for approving the Project but they did not adopt any findings to reject the Project Approvals.

Baylands contends that the Planning Commission is required to make specific findings supported by substantial evidence to deny the Development Permits. Baylands states that the Planning Commission believed it needed to know the final use of the Project site to make the necessary findings for approval, but that is not accurate because knowledge of specific proposed use(s) of the Project site is not required to approve a Reclamation Plan and associated permits.

Staff Analysis:

See discussion above under Basis 1.Further, although the Planning Commission noted concerns about determining the ultimate “end use” for the project site, they did not make findings as to this issue. Lastly, discussion about the end use was not inappropriate given the proposal by the applicant to phase the reclamation and concurrently move forward with a Specific Plan for the Quarry site.

Basis 4. The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion because the Planning Commission did not adopt any findings to deny the Project in violation of State Law.

Baylands contends that the Planning Commission did not adopt any findings in the denial of the Project.

Staff Analysis:

See discussion above under Basis 1.
7 Packet Pg. 210
Pacifica City Council 13 September 23, 2024
Basis 5. The Planning Commission erroneously claimed that the Reclamation Plan would not mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

Baylands contends that the Planning Commission erroneously failed to certify and adopt the Final EIR.

Staff Analysis:

As the Planning Commission did not approve the project, no CEQA action was required.(CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.)It should be noted that the Final EIR concludes that all significant environmental impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.

Basis 6. The Planning Commission misconstrued the Project Specific Plan.

Baylands contends that the Planning Commission failed to provide evidence in effective denial of Specific Plan SP-197-22 and misconstrued a Specific Plan required under PMC Section 9-

4.2208 from a discretionary land use plan that may be adopted pursuant to the California Government Code.

Staff Analysis:

See above discussion under Basis 1. It should also be noted that per Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.2212, the Project requires approval of a Specific Plan, which states that no grading or excavation permit shall be issued by the City for any location in the P-D District or Hillside Preservation District, unless the grading and excavation is necessary for the establishment or maintain of any approved specific plan. As the Project site current zoning contains a Hillside Preservation District Overly, the Reclamation Plan must obtain a Development Plan and Specific Plan for any reclamation activities. There is no evidence in the record that the Planning Commission did not understand this requirement.

Basis 7. The City Council should review this Appeal and reject the Planning Commission’s Decision rejecting the Project approvals.

As this a de novo hearing, Baylands requests that the City Council review the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s de facto denial of the Project.

Staff Analysis:

As this appeal is heard de novo, the City Council may approve, deny or modify the application as if it were reviewing the action anew.(PMC Section 9-4.3208) Thus, the Council may consider the application and determine whether the Reclamation Plan in fact should be approved. In considering the issues raised by this application and following review of all the application materials, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff determines that the findings can be made and that the appeal should be upheld based on the analysis set forth in more detail below.

E. ANALYSIS OF THE REDUCED FILL ALTERNATIVE
Consistency with General Plan and Municipal Code Requirements. The City of Pacifica General Plan identifies the Rockaway Quarry property as “most prominent potential development site” for promoting tourism and economic development in Pacifica by extending the visitor-oriented environment and pursuing uses such as destination hotels and inns on the developable portion of this site as encapsulated in General Plan policies ES-I-5 (pg. 2-13) and ES-1-18 (pg. 2-14).

As shown below, the 2040 General Plan designates approximately half of the site, including the upland areas and the Calera Creek riparian corridor for “Conservation” that will remain open space with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The remaining portions of the Quarry site comprising of the “Flats” (the Eastern Parcel) and the “Pad” overlooking Rockway Beach on the Quarry Parcel are designated “Visitor-Serving Commercial”.

The General Plan envisions the “Visitor-Serving Commercial” areas as supporting potential uses 7 Packet Pg. 211
Pacifica City Council 14 September 23, 2024
such as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail uses integrated with the Rockaway Beach district. General Plan Policy LU-I-25 (pg. 4-36) recommends the preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry site to enable responsible development and environmental conservation of this site.

The General Plan also requires completion of the reclamation of the former quarry pursuant to the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica Municipal Code, prior to any future development on this site.

The applicant’s proposal promotes the General Plan’s vision and direction for the future development of the Rockaway Quarry site. It also provides the opportunity to initiate the proposed reclamation activity using the Reduced Fill Alternative, and a City-initiated specific planning process to be conducted concurrently, which is consistent with the General Plan and the goals of the City Council.

As set forth in the attached resolution and ordinance, staff has also determined that all of the required findings for approval can be made.

F. Project Issues
There have been several recurring concerns raised by the public and Planning Commission members. The Reduced Fill Alternative resolves several concerns and deficiencies in previous iterations of the Reclamation Plan as discussed below.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in the Memorandum, dated August 13, 2024, from the City’s CEQA consultant, the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources as they related to the Quarry site were evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020090036) for the April 2023 Reclamation Plan, which had a larger footprint and more intensive grading than that proposed with the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Draft EIR disclosed and discussed the 7 Packet Pg. 212
Pacifica City Council 15 September 23, 2024
resources known to be on the site and determined a less than significant impact to cultural and tribal cultural resources, subject to Measures Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) and (b).

These Mitigation Measures include provisions that will be implemented if project grounddisturbing activities result in inadvertent discoveries of precontact or historic artifacts, including human remains and resources of cultural and religious significance to Native American tribes.

An Extended Phase I Survey and Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared by ALTA, which collectively encompassed the entirety of the project site, was also reviewed in response to public comments on the EIR. This study and report, as well as a concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), support the analyses and conclusions of the Draft EIR.

The Mitigation Measures noted above would be made part of the conditions of approval by reference and be implemented during construction. As such, additional CEQA review is not warranted in this regard.

However, the property owner has indicated that he would work with the Ramaytush Tribe in pursuing a Specific Plan for the Quarry site. Approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative as conditioned would require the owner to fund a Specific Plan after the City’s approval of the reclamation plan, which would provide a framework for these stakeholder discussions to take place.

Water Quality
Best Management practices for protection of water quality would be implemented during project construction. These include, but would not be limited to silt fences, check dams, vegetated nonoperational/undisturbed areas and drainage swales. The Applicant provided a stormwater management plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for the October 2023 Reclamation Plan, which will be updated, subject to the approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative, which, as conditioned, represents a significantly reduced scope of work and is phased to be less intensive than previous proposals. Staff has included a proposed condition of approval requiring review and approval of a detailed, updated stormwater management plan and SWPPP for the Reduced Fill Alternative for protection of water quality during implementation of the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned.

Soil Testing
The Soil Management Plan, prepared November 2019, and last updated October 2023 includes “Soil Review and Acceptance Guidelines” that provide a prescriptive step process to ensure soil proposed for importing is subject to testing requirements in accordance with applicable U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Methods and specifies the environmental screening levels (ESL) for soil testing.

The last updated Soil Management Plan requires additional testing of imported soil for Sudden Oak Death tree disease pathogens and Valley fever fungus, addresses identification and includes procedure to identify, remove, and properly dispose of any soil that is identified during the course of the testing process and removal of contaminated soil discovered after it has been placed onsite. The updated plan also provides for periodic independent testing by the City of Pacifica, subject to certain requirements, and reimbursement to the City for the costs of up to four onsite tests performed by the City per year. However, the Soil Management Plan does not clearly identify oversight authority or monitoring procedures for the exercise of oversight.

Based on the above discussion, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring review and approval of the project’s soil management plan by California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The condition includes the requirement for soil testing at a regular interval and required soil sampling of no less than every other truck importing the fill for reclamation and grading per the approved project
“Zero” Imported Fill
A condition of “zero” imported fill would require generating fill on site for reclaiming the former Quarry, in accordance with SMARA objectives that set the framework for evaluating a reclamation plan. Pursuant to SMARA, a reclamation plan must be based upon the character of 7 Packet Pg. 213
Pacifica City Council 16 September 23, 2024
the surrounding area and such characteristics of the property as type of overburden, soil stability, topography, geology, climate, stream characteristics, and principal mineral commodities, and establish site-specific criteria for evaluating compliance with the approved reclamation plan, including topography, revegetation and sediment, and erosion control, to the extent that they are consistent with the planned or actual subsequent use or uses of the mining site.(SMARA Section 2773 (a) and (b).

The Rockaway Quarry parcel, is characterized by the: the Hilltop (the high ground on the north edge of the parcel); the East Flank (the hillside comprised mostly of old quarry debris on the east slope of the Quarry parcel); the Quarry Face (the scarp left by mining in the parcel center, consisting of limestone beds); the Quarry Pit (the bowl remaining in the bottom of the old Quarry), and the Southern Bluff (the old edge of the Quarry on the south adjacent to the ocean).

The current topography of the Quarry is predominantly composed of steep slopes; major erosion has been identified immediately below the 135-foot contour where there are nearly vertical mining cuts and lack of vegetation. Fill is required for Quarry reclamation and SMARA Section 3704(d) establishes a guideline whereby reclamation of the Quarry pit with fill must be at slopes no greater than 2:1 and Section 3704(e) requires fill slopes to conform with the surrounding topography and/or end use.

The Draft EIR for the April 2023 Reclamation Plan considered and rejected the “Zero” Imported Fill alternative as the “No Soil Hauling Alternative”, involving using the on-site soil collected from the cuts on project site, rather than using imported fill soils. As indicated in the EIR, and all reclamation proposals for the Quarry site, including the Reduced Fill Alternative, the cuts proposed on site generate fill (70,000 cubic yards) that is not sufficient for reclamation.

Additional fill generation on site would require cuts to the Hilltop area and Southern Bluff involving removal of the remnant native-dominated on the East Flank and alteration to the ocean views afforded by the Southern Bluff due to changes in the existing elevations because of cuts.

The excessive cut to the project site is inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan vision and policies (see, CD-1-18, pg. 3-14). As recognized in the 2040 General Plan “The sensitive natural and visual resources of hillsides also apply to the undeveloped coastal bluffs and promontories, including the Northern Coastal Bluffs, the Quarry site uplands, and Aramai Point (also known as the Rockaway Headlands)”(GP pg. 3-10), and that “Three promontories dominate Pacifica’s Coastal Zone and visually represent the coastal character of Pacifica. These landforms—Pedro Point Headlands, Aramai Point (formerly known as the Rockaway Headlands), and Mori Point (including the Quarry site uplands)” (pg. 3-12). Additionally, generating fill on site would intensify noise impacts from potential machinery needed for generating on-site fill.

G. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Pursuant to a rigorous analysis of the Reduced Fill Alternative, comments received by the public and the Planning Commission, collaboration with City Departments and City’s subject matter experts and consultants, staff has proposed the following new and revised conditions of approval for City Council's consideration to resolve and mitigate issues concerning the approval of the Reclamation Plan. The conditions address Project phasing to ensure the reclamation proceeds at a slower pace while the City is concurrently undertaking a Specific Plan and that imported fill is no more than necessary for the ultimate development of the site. Further, the conditions require a number of plans to be reviewed by the City as the project progresses, including traffic, soil management and grading plans. In order to ensure the public, Planning Commission and City Council continue to be kept informed of the project, the new conditions also include an annual reporting requirement.
7 Packet Pg. 214
Pacifica City Council 17 September 23, 2024
The new and revised conditions are set forth in full below. Condition numbers below are listed as found in the attached Resolution, Exhibit C.

9. Any reclamation undertaken pursuant to the approved Project (Reclamation Plan) shall be in phases and in accordance with Grading and Management Plans as determined by a geotechnical analysis prepared by the applicant, peer-reviewed, and approved by the Community Development Department, Public Works Department/Engineering Division as detailed below:

A. Any grading on the Project site shall be conducted in the phases, as follows:

1. Phase 1:
a. Phase 1 shall incorporate no more than 100,000 cubic yards of imported fill for the first two (2) years from the commencement of reclamation upon issuance of all required ministerial and discretionary approvals "Necessary Approvals" from State and Federal agencies (listed below in subsection B.). b. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for commencement of reclamation at the Project site, the applicant shall submit a Phase 1 Grading and Management Plan subject to the maximum imported fill requirements set forth in (A)(1)(a) above.

2. Phase 2:
a. Following Phase 1, any additional reclamation shall be subject to the following phasing and maximum imported fill amounts, contingent on a city-initiated, community-led draft specific plan (“Specific Plan”) for the Project site being prepared and distributed for public release within the first three (3) years from the commencement of Phase 1:
i. If a Specific Plan has been prepared, the applicant shall submit a Phase 2 Grading and Management Plan for the maximum amount of imported fill based on that amount necessary for development that is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan for development of the Project site. ii. If no Specific Plan has been prepared, the applicant may submit a Phase 2 Grading and Management Plan for no more than an additional 100,000 cubic yards of imported fill.

3. Phase 3:
a. If no Specific Plan has been prepared and distributed within the first four (4) years from the commencement of Phase 1, the applicant may submit a Phase 3 Grading and Management Plan for a maximum imported fill of 583,000 cubic yards, or such lower amount as is necessary to develop land uses at the Project site in accordance with the applicable General Plan land use designations. b. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for continued reclamation at the Project site for any additional grading and import of fill after completion of Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a Phase 3 Grading and Management Plan for any additional grading and import of fill, subject to the maximum imported fill amounts set forth in (A)(3)(a) above.

B. Necessary Approvals:

The following approvals are required to be obtained prior to issuance of any grading permit for commencement of reclamation of the Project site:
• Coastal Development Permit (California Coastal Commission); • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit (US Army Corp of Engineers); • Section 7 Biological Opinion (US Fish and Wildlife Service); • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver or Issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (CA Regional Water Quality Control Board); and
• SMARA Compliance Review (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation).
7 Packet Pg. 215
Pacifica City Council 18 September 23, 2024

10. Property owner shall fund all City costs for the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Quarry site immediately upon the City’s approval of the Reclamation Plan. This obligation shall be documented in a Reimbursement Agreement to be entered into with the City, in a form acceptable to City, that provides for the owner’s full funding of City’s costs and expenses for the preparation a Specific Plan for the Quarry site, including without limitation, all costs related to community engagement, workshops and any public outreach as determined by City.

11. Prior to issuance of grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall provide a detailed Traffic Management Plan, including performance standards for monitoring and implementation, in conjunction with the Grading Management Plan, for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Engineering Divisions. The applicant shall be responsible for all peer review consultation costs incurred by the City to complete the review.

12. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall seek review and approval of the proposed Soil Management Plan from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for imported fill screening and provide evidence of DTSC approval to the City. The soil sampling interval shall be no less than every other truck importing the fill for reclamation and grading per the approved project. The approved plan shall be provided to the City for implementation and monitoring.

13. Prior to issuance of grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall submit a compiled set of detailed Civil Plans that shall, at a minimum include the grading plan for each Phase, stormwater management plan, erosion control plan, existing and proposed site sections, and necessary details. The grading permit submittal for each Phase shall also include all applicable documents per current industry standards and technical guidance including, but not limited to, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Water Quality Sample Plan, fungi testing requirements, Dust Mitigation Plan, Adaptive Mitigation Plan, and Soil Management Plan to be submitted to the Community Development Department and be subject to peer review prior to acceptance/approval by the City.

14. Prior to the issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Community Development Director for the proposed revegetation in the Reclamation Plan and tree replacement plantings required in the MMRP. The Applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction that the Project geotechnical engineer confirms that tree replanting species and locations are appropriate and will ensure slope stability.

16. The Applicant shall comply with a prohibition on exiting truck trips during Vallemar School drop-off hours not less than from 8-9 AM on days when school is in session and document it in the Traffic Management Plan for each phase of reclamation activities.

17. The Applicant shall not source import soil from any location in Santa Clara County (as proposed in the Revised Reclamation Plan submitted to the City of Pacifica on October 23, 2023).

18. Prior to the issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit, Applicant shall enter into a post-reclamation Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for the ongoing maintenance of the storm drain system including but not limited to maintenance of the sediment junction structures. The O&M Agreement shall be recorded on the Project site and bind the current and future property owners to the maintenance obligations contained in the Agreement.

19. An Annual Report shall be prepared by the City each year that summarizes the following:
7 Packet Pg. 216
Pacifica City Council 19 September 23, 2024
A. Progress of the Reclamation Plan over the preceding year beginning January 1 and ending on December 31
B. Upcoming reclamation activities
C. All grading and development activity conducted in the reporting period on the property, and compliance with all conditions of approval imposed on the project.

D. In preparation of this Annual Report, the city may retain independent consultants to assist in data gathering, analysis, and report preparation.

E. The applicant shall provide all required information requested by the City including but not limited to truck traffic, soil management, biological surveys to monitor compliance of all conditions of approval that is needed for preparation of an Annual Report F. The applicant shall fund all aspects of report preparation, including but not limited to reimbursement for staff time (including City Attorney time), consultant fees, and direct costs associated with report production and distribution.

G. The Annual Report shall be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting in March each year for acceptance.

Summary
In light of the above, staff recommends the state-mandated reclamation be approved with conditions to require the reclamation to be conducted in a phased manner with limited fill, while the City concurrently undertakes a city initiated, community led specific planning process at the applicant’s expense.

H. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Development Permits, after considering the appeal. The Council is also the final decision-maker on the proposed Rezoning and Development Plan. In the event that the Council determines to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project, the Council should approve the appeal filed by Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC and deny the appeal filed by Dan Stegink by adopting the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to deny the appeal filed by Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC and approve the appeal filed by Dan Stegink, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s denial by staff to be brought back to Council at a later date.

I. RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:S
The Project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s 2024-25 Work Plan.

Conditions of approval that require submittal of a deposit to fund the preparation of a Specific Plan are consistent with City Council’s 2024-25 Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.

J. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
The City Council must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA prior to any action to approve the Project. The City, as the lead agency, has prepared the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City published a Notice of Preparation for the EIR on September 2, 2020 and held a Scoping Meeting on September 16, 2020. On February 16, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (DEIR).

Publication of the Notice of Availability began a forty-five (45) day public review period, concluding April 4, 2022.CEQA Guidelines Appendix G sets forth a set of questions to guide evaluation of potential environmental impacts across a variety of resource areas. The DEIR 7 Packet Pg. 217
Pacifica City Council 20 September 23, 2024
found that all impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Staff recommends City Council certify the FEIR, adopt the Findings of Fact, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving the appeal filed by Baylands Soils Pacifica, LLC, denying the appeal filed by Dan Stegink, and overturning the Planning Commission’s effective denial as discussed above. Staff also recommends certification and adoption of the Final EIR, with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the Project. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Staff has received a number of public comments (Attachment F).

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct impact since all costs would be borne by the Appellant Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (PDF) Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (DOCX) Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (PDF) Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink (PDF)
Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC (PDF) Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 218
RESOLUTION NO.

ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL OF DAN STEGNIK AND UPHOLDING

APPEAL OF BAYLANDS SOILS PACIFICA, LLC, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S EFFECTIVE DENIAL OF VARIOUS ACTIONS TO APPROVE THE ROCKAWAY QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN; CERTIFYING FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND

MITIGATION AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN; AND APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN SP-179-22, QUARRY USE PERMIT UP 71- 16, VARIANCE PV-531-22, AND TREE PERMIT TP-1-22 (FILE NO. 2016-001) ______________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Paul Heule and The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC (“Owner”) and Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC (“Baylands”) (collectively, the “Applicant”).

WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to reclaim and restore the former Rockaway Quarry as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), incorporated by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”), by importing approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of soil to restore the excavated quarry face and other areas to a pre-mining, establishing 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond, constructing new unpaved recreational trails and drainage improvements throughout the site, and removing 25 protected trees, on the former Rockaway Quarry, approximately 86-acre in area, located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project would not include any changes in use or building construction on the Project site; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the C-3X/HPD/CZ (Service Commercial with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Project site would require a rezoning to the P-DX/HPD/CZ (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use/Hillside Preservation District Overlay/Coastal Zone Combining District) zoning district from the existing C3X/HPD/CZ zoning district as required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay zoning district standards in PMC Section 9-4.2256, and require approval of a Development Plan to assign site-specific zoning pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203, both of which as legislative actions require City Council adoption of an ordinance pursuant to state law and the PMC; and WHEREAS, upon the Project site’s rezoning to the P-DX (Planned Development with Public Vote Required to Rezone for Residential Use) Zoning District, the Project would require approval of a specific plan prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit to ensure consistency with the approved development plan pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2208 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Project would require approval of a quarry use permit to authorize reclamation of a quarry pursuant to PMC Section 9-2.04; and WHEREAS, the Project would require a variance pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3401 to exceed the coverage limitation for grading within the HPD overlay zoning district contained in PMC Section 9-4.2257; and

7.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
2 WHEREAS, the Project would require approval of a tree permit to authorize removal of protected trees pursuant to PMC Section 4-12.04(a); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Coastal Zone; however, the site is not within the City of Pacifica’s Certified Local Coastal Program and an application for a Coastal Development Permit must be separately approved for the Project by the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”); and
WHEREAS, henceforth, the rezoning and development plan shall collectively be referred to as the “Legislative Actions” and the specific plan, quarry use permit, variance, and tree permit shall collectively be referred to as the “Development Permits”; and WHEREAS, City of Pacifica Community Development Department (formerly the City of Pacifica Planning Department) is the Lead Agency for preparing the environmental review for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for Project approval; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica Planning Division issued a Notice of Preparation of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) on September 2, 2020, for the Project, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) for the Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City of Pacifica issued a Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability for the DEIR, which was distributed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City of Pacifica distributed copies of the DEIR to public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to publicly accessible repositories including the Sharp Park and Sanchez branches of the Pacifica Library and invited comments on the DEIR in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085, 15087, and 15105 and Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and WHEREAS, the 45-day minimum public review and comment period for the DEIR ran from February 16, 2022, through April 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were collected and responses to comments (“RTC”) were considered in the revisions made to the DEIR to comprise the Final EIR (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) was made available to the public on January 13, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from the Project and recommends certain mitigation measures regarding such effects; and

7.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on June 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, where the commissioners and members of the public expressed concerns and requests for more information on the potential impacts of the Project. The comments primarily pertained to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effects on biological resources, soil testing criteria of imported fill, potential water quality impacts due to erosion and stormwater runoff, and traffic concerns; and
WHEREAS, in response to the comments expressed at the June 5, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, particularly those of the commissioners, the Applicant prepared a Revised Reclamation Plan (“Revised Project”). Among other revisions, the Revised Project requires a reduced amount of imported fill (874,000 cubic yards) relative to the amount required by the previously proposed Project, while still meeting the standards set forth by the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Reclamation Standards for the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975; and
WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant evaluated the Applicant’s changes and determined they do not change the analysis and conclusions in the draft and final EIRs and are anticipated to result in fewer environmental impacts than the previously proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant further determined that the Revised Project does not constitute: (1) information that shows a new significant impact; (2) information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels); (3) information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or (4) information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment. Rather, any new information clarifies or amplifies the analysis in the Draft EIR.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR was not warranted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Project on March 18, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the commissioners and members of the public expressed concerns regarding the Revised Project. The concerns primarily pertained to the quantity and quality of imported fill, traffic concerns including truck trips, consideration of seasonal variations in reclamations activities, and public health and environmental impacts including biological and tribal cultural resources impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 6, 2024, to allow the Applicant time to address the concerns expressed at the March 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, the May 6, 2024 meeting was later cancelled and replaced with a Planning Commission Study Session held on May 20, 2024, upon the request of the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposed an alternative that would import approximately 583,000 cubic yards of soil with the option for further reductions after a specific planning process (the “Reduced Fill Alternative”) at the May 20, 2024, Study Session to receive input from the

7.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
4 Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the commissioners and members of the public reiterated concerns pertaining to quantity and quality of imported fill, soil testing, water quality, tribal cultural resources, truck trips and traffic, and sought information and clarification on the SMARA requirements and process, and the Reduced Fill Alternative and correspondence with the specific plan process; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR evaluated a Reduced Fill Alternative under which a minimal amount of fill required to meet SMARA requirements and slope stability would be used; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Fill Alternative would generally achieve the Project’s objectives and would result in fewer impacts than the Project in several resource areas. However, impacts would be similar in the majority of resource areas, such as biological resources and hydrology and water quality; and WHEREAS, the CEQA’s consultant provided a memorandum dated August 13, 2024in response to comments regarding the cultural and tribal cultural resources on the Quarry site, which provided additional discussion on the impacts and confirmed the analysis in the FEIR (“Cultural Resources Memorandum”). This memorandum does not constitute: (1) information that shows a new significant impact; (2) information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels); (3) information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or (4) information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment. Rather, any new information clarifies or amplifies the analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the Reduced Fill Alternative on August 19, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the proposed Project, but the motion failed with a vote of 0-5-2 (Devine and Godwin absent), effectively denying the Project; and
WHEREAS, Baylands Soils Pacifica, LLC (“Baylands”) filed an appeal (“Appeal 1”) of the Planning Commission’s effective denial on August 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, Dan Stegink (“Stegink”) filed an appeal (“Appeal 2”) of the Planning Commission’s effective denial on August 29, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

7.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
5 A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

B. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby approve the Appeal 1 and deny the Appeal 2 based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and overturn the Planning Commission’s effective denial on August 19, 2024 of the Project, and makes the following findings pertaining to these Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:

APPEAL FILED BY DAN STEGINK
Basis 1. Felons involved should be barred from doing business in Pacifica Finding: The City is not able to prohibit any individual and/or entity from doing business in Pacifica.

Basis 2. Nothing in Quarry requires remediation or imported fill Findings: Under State law, as discussed above, the property owner is required to reclaim the Quarry site, subject to SMARA and the City’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-2.01 and obtain a SMARA Compliance Review from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation.

Basis 3. Quarry is an Indigenous cultural asset worth of both California and National registration of Historic Places Designation
Finding: Per the August 13, 2024 Memo by Raney Planning and Management, Inc., although the Rockaway Quarry does appear eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1 for its association with reconstruction efforts following the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, the resource does not demonstrate sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing on the registries. Archival research did not reveal information sources that can be used to reconstruct the operational processes, personnel, contracts, business relationships, revenue, or policies involved with shaping Rockaway Quarry. Field investigations revealed no significant historic-era features or materials. As such, the resource is recommended as not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP or CRHP under Criterion B/2, C/3, or D/4.

Basis 4. The Biological Resources Report is inadequate.

Finding: The EIR analyzes the potential for these species to be on site. The EIR states that the Project site does not contain suitable aquatic habit with ponds and basking areas that would support Western pond turtles. The EIR acknowledges two known detections of California Red-Legged frogs on the Project site and the Project includes restoration of a 0.20- acre California Red-Legged frog pond. The EIR acknowledges that the San Francisco Garter Snake is known to occur on Project site. Additionally, there are mitigation measures in the EIR that require training of employees to identify these species during reclamation activities, conduct surveys prior to reclamation activities, and limit reclamation activities during known active times for both species.

As set forth above, there is no basis for Mr. Stegink’s appeal.

7.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
6 APPEAL FILED BY BAYLANDS SOIL PACIFICA, LLC (“BAYLANDS”) Basis 1. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial because it was not supported by substantial evidence
Basis 2. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Project because the Commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence Basis 3. The Planning Commissioner erroneously stated that they could not make the required findings for approving the Project but they did not adopt any findings to reject the Project Approvals.

Basis 4. The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion because the Planning Commission did not adopt any findings to deny the Project in violation of State Law.

Basis 5. The Planning Commission erroneously claimed that the Reclamation Plan would not mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

Basis 6. The Planning Commission misconstrued the Project Specific Plan Finding: The Planning Commission effectively denied the Development Permits. Therefore, no findings were necessary. The City Council, as the appellate body, is the ultimate decision-maker and will be making findings when they make their decision on the Development Permits and the Legislative Enactments. As to Basis 3, although the Planning Commission noted concerns about determining the ultimate “end use” for the project site, they did not make findings as to this issue.

Discussion about the end use was not inappropriate given the proposal by the applicant to phase the reclamation and concurrently move forward with a Specific Plan for the Quarry site. As to Basis 5, since the Planning Commission did not approve the project, no CEQA action was required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) As to Basis 6, there is no evidence in the record that the Planning Commission did not misconstrued the Specific Plan requirements.

For the foregoing reasons, Basis 1 – 6 above provide no grounds to overturn the Planning Commission’s effective denial.

Basis 7. The City Council should review this Appeal and reject the Planning Commission’s Decision rejecting the Project approvals.

Finding: As this appeal is heard de novo, the City Council may approve, deny or modify the application as if it were reviewing the action anew. (PMC Section 9-4.3208) Thus, the Council may consider the application and determine whether the Reclamation Plan in fact should be approved. In considering the issues raised by this application and following review of all the application materials, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff determines that the findings can be made and that the appeal should be upheld based on the analysis in the staff report and the findings set forth in with respect to the Development Permits below, as well as the findings set forth in the proposed Ordinance to approve the Legislative Enactments.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica, hereby:

1. The City Council finds that the FEIR was presented to the City Council, that the FEIR was prepared, published, circulated, reviewed and completed in full compliance with State law and CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public review of the DEIR, that it has considered all comments on the DEIR and responses

7.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
7 to comments, that the FEIR adequately discusses all significant environmental issues, and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR.

2. The City Council finds that the information added in the FEIR does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation, but rather that additional information clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR.

3. The City Council further finds that the Cultural Resources Memorandum and any additional information submitted do not change the analysis and conclusions in the EIR. Further, the does not constitute: (1) information that shows a new significant impact; (2) information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels); (3) information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or (4) information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment. Rather, any new information clarifies or amplifies the analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.

4. The City Council hereby certifies the FEIR.

5. The City Council further finds that the Applicant’s proposed Reduced Fill Alternative was generally considered in the FEIR as a lesser fill alternative designated as the Reduced Fill Alternative, which would result in fewer impacts than the Revised Project in several resource areas. However, impacts would be similar in the majority of resource areas, such as biological resources and hydrology and water quality.

6. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval and recommendations of the Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A incorporated herein by reference, finds that such Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence and adopts the Findings of Fact.

7. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and in support of its approval and recommendations of the Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that requires all mitigation measures described in the FEIR be implemented by means of project conditions, agreements or other measures, as set forth in the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP.

8. The record of proceedings is available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, 1800 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica, CA 94044. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Department of the

7.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
8 City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-179-22:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.

The proposed development plan, if approved, would allow reclamation of the Project site by grading, revegetation, and construction of trails, wetlands mitigation areas, and drainage improvements. The proposed specific plan would implement the development plan that authorizes these proposed improvements.

The Preliminary Concept Plan shows the proposed grading involving creation of a 5-acre flat pad instead of slope hill terrain. The estimated earthwork quantities associated with the grading work for the Reduced Fill Alternative are shown below in Table 1 and demonstrates a net fill of 583,000 cubic yards. The majority of the grading work for reclamation would occur in the Quarry Pit area of the Quarry Parcel. The resultant condition of the Project site following grading would approximate the pre-mining condition of the site based on historic aerial photography.

Table 1
Earthwork Quantities
The Project site is located within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay district.

The HPD overlay district includes coverage controls that limit the allowable surface area of buildings, paving, and grading based on a formula that relates to the size and average slope of the Project site as provided in PMC Section 9-4.2257. Sheets C0.1 and C1.0 in Attachment E of the October 2023 staff report demonstrate the grading area and calculations for allowable and proposed HPD coverage on the Quarry Parcel and Eastern Parcel that would not change in Reduced Fill Alternative The proposed reclamation plan would include the HPD coverage values provided in Table 2:

Table 2
Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Coverage
Parcel Coverage Allowed Per
PMC Sec. 9-4.2257 Coverage Proposed
Quarry
Parcel 3.0 acres (7.42% of site) 22.0 acres (54.45%)
Eastern
Parcel 15.5 acres (39.64% of site) 2.8 acres (7.16%)
Upon approval of the requested variance, discussed below, the Reduced Fill Alternative would be consistent with the HPD coverage controls.

7.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
9 The storm drainage system would utilize a combination of vegetated swales, stormwater inlets, and conveyance pipes that would capture runoff to prevent erosion of the reclaimed hillsides.

These improvements, collectively, would result in an appropriate reclamation of the former quarry. The regraded hillsides, drainage infrastructure, revegetation, and wetlands habitat mitigation are necessary and appropriate to implement the development plan which intends the Project site to be an undeveloped site suitable for future use in accordance with the General Plan. (2) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

As more fully described above, the proposed reclamation plan would be consistent with Design Guidelines related to Hillside Development, specifically those related to slope stability and erosion; visual impact; and access difficulty.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Quarry Use Permit UP-71-16:
(1) The reclamation plan conforms fully to the provisions of this chapter, the City's general plan, and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Sections 2772 and 2773, and shall comply with applicable requirements of State regulations (Sections 3500- 3505 and 3700-3713) as may be amended.

The 2040 General Plan Land Use chapter states that the Project site is Pacifica’s most prominent potential development site and prior to any future development, the property owner must complete reclamation of the former quarry. Therefore, the General Plan has considered the reclamation of the site and the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, conforms to the General Plan in that it would initiate reclamation of the former quarry concurrent with a specific planning process and facilitate end uses, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Furthermore, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with policies in the Open Space and Community Facilities Element, Conservation Element, Safety Element, and Land Use Element of the 2040 General Plan, as more fully detailed, above.

The Reduced Fill Alternative would be subject to the requirements established in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). As stated in Public Resources Code Section 2712, the Legislature’s intent in enacting SMARA was to assure that:
a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses;
b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment; and,
c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated.

As described in the staff report, the Reduced Fill Alternative would address adverse environmental effects and hazards to public health and safety presented by oversteep, unreclaimed slopes that resulted from past mining activities. It would reclaim the site concurrently with a specific planning process to facilitate end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Thus, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with the intent of SMARA.

7.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
10 The City provided the reclamation proposals by the Applicant to the Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR), the state agency responsible for administration of SMARA, in February 2022, February 2023 and August 2024, as required by Section 2722.1. DMR provided minor comments on the originally proposed reclamation plan on March 21, 2023.

The comments from DMR included two administrative items and one substantive item that DMR recommended be revised in the proposed reclamation plan. The Revised Reclamation Plan submitted in October 2023 incorporated the revisions requested by DMR that remain unchanged in the Reduced Fill Alternative, which was provided to the Division in August 2024. Therefore, the Reduced Fill Alternative should be considered complete for purposes of the informational requirements of SMARA.

While the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would entail limitations on the scope of earthwork, it would still be required to be consistent with SMARA Sections 2772 or 2773, and the applicable requirements of State regulations (14 CCR Sections 3500-3505 and 3700-3713). Specifically, the reclamation per the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with the requirements of SMARA including but not limited to the following:

A. Section 3503(f): Resoiling. When the reclamation plan calls for resoiling, coarse hard mine waste shall be leveled and covered with a layer of finer material or weathered waste. A soil layer shall then be placed on this prepared surface. Surface mines that did not salvage soil during their initial operations shall attempt, where feasible, to upgrade remaining materials. The use of soil conditioners, mulches, or imported topsoil shall be considered where revegetation is part of the reclamation plan and where such measures appear necessary. It is not justified, however, to denude adjacent areas of their soil, for any such denuded areas must in turn be reclaimed.

The Reduced Fill Alternative would necessarily import soil to regrade oversteep slopes and create slopes no steeper than 2:1 consistent with SMARA requirements.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would not denude adjacent areas of their soil.

B. Section 3503(g): Revegetation. When the reclamation plan calls for revegetation the available research addressing revegetation methods and the selection of species having good survival characteristics, for the topography, resoiling characteristics, and climate of the mined areas shall be used.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would utilize appropriate local, native species for revegetation.

C. Section 3703: Performance Standards for Wildlife Habitat. Wildlife and wildlife habitat shall be protected in accordance with the following standards:
(a) Rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the California Department of Fish and Game, (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, sections 670.2 - 670.5) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) or species of special concern as listed by the California Department of Fish and Game in the Special Animals List, Natural Diversity Data Base, and their respective habitat, shall be conserved as prescribed by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq., and the California Endangered Species Act, Fish

7.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
11 and Game Code section 2050 et seq. If avoidance cannot be achieved through the available alternatives, mitigation shall be proposed in accordance with the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq., and the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.
(b) Wildlife habitat shall be established on disturbed land in a condition at least as good as that which existed before the lands were disturbed by surface mining operations, unless the proposed end use precludes its use as wildlife habitat or the approved reclamation plan establishes a different habitat type than that which existed prior to mining.
(c) Wetland habitat shall be avoided. Any wetland habitat impacted as a consequence of surface mining operations shall be mitigated at a minimum of one to one ratio for wetland habitat acreage and wetland habitat value.

The Reduced Fill Alternative has considered the presence of rare, threatened or endangered species and species of special concern. It is not possible to entirely avoid wildlife habitat and wetlands areas utilized by the identified species that have the potential to be present on the Project site. However, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, proposes to restore affected wetlands in excess of 1:1 replacement ratio, and would create 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new

0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond. Revegetation with appropriate local and native species will also help to restore appropriate wildlife habitat on the Project site.

D. Section 3704: Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability, and Recontouring. Backfilling, regrading, slope stabilization, and recontouring shall conform with the following standards:
(a) Where backfilling is proposed for urban uses (e.g., roads, building sites, or other improvements sensitive to settlement), the fill material shall be compacted in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials and as adopted by the lead agency, the local grading ordinance, or other methods approved by the lead agency as appropriate for the approved end use.
(b) Where backfilling is required for resource conservation purposes (e.g., agriculture, fish and wildlife habitat, and wildland conservation), fill material shall be backfilled to the standards required for the resource conservation use involved. (c) Piles or dumps of mining waste shall be stockpiled in such a manner as to facilitate phased reclamation. They shall be segregated from topsoil and topsoil substitutes or growth media salvaged for use in reclamation. (d) Final reclaimed fill slopes, including permanent piles or dumps of mine waste rock and overburden, shall not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), except when sitespecific geologic and engineering analysis demonstrate that the proposed final slope will have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use, and when the proposed final slope can be successfully revegetated.
(e) At closure, all fill slopes, including permanent piles or dumps of mine waste and overburden, shall conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use.

7.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
12 (f) Cut slopes, including final highwalls and quarry faces, shall have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use and conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use. (g) Permanent placement of piles or dumps of mining waste and overburden shall not occur within wetlands unless mitigation acceptable to the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands, which may include the lead agency, has been proposed to offset wetland impacts and/or losses.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would backfill slope areas in accordance with the performance standards upon peer review of recommendations in an updated geotechnical report required for the scope of work, as conditioned.

All proposed final reclaimed fill slopes shall equal to or less than 2:1 slope. (2) The reclamation plan has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's environmental review guidelines, and all significant adverse impacts from reclamation of the surface mining operations are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft EIR was prepared in February 2022 pursuant to CEQA that included an analysis of the Reduced Fill Alternative. All significant impacts associated with the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible upon adoption and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the Final EIR. No environmental impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
(3) The land and/or resources such as water bodies to be reclaimed will be restored to a condition that is compatible with, and blends with, the surrounding natural environment, topography, and other resources, to the maximum extent feasible.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, includes the following objectives related to the natural surrounding environmental, topography, and other resources:
• Minimize grading to the maximum extent practicable in a manner that is consistent with the other objectives and maintains an average 2:1 slope on Project site. • Mitigate and restore prior physical disturbances resulting from past quarrying activity on the Project site.
• Provide for erosion control measures, land stewardship and maintenance to reduce sediment transport from the Project site into Calera Creek (which drains into the Pacific Ocean) in order to improve the creek’s water quality.
• Reclaim the Project site for end use, in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the 2040 General Plan while maintaining the views of the Pacific Ocean with
(4) The reclamation plan will restore the mined lands to a usable condition that is readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the general plan, local coastal land use plan, California Coastal Act, and Zoning Code.

The Reduced Fill Alternative was prepared pursuant to SMARA and the City of Pacifica Surface Mining and Reclamation regulations (PMC Title 9, Chapter 2). As conditioned, the Reduced Fill Alternative will initiate reclamation concurrently with a specific planning process to facilitate end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan and consistent with

7.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
13 SMARA standards. The reclamation, as conditioned, is necessary to achieve the requirements of this finding because the existing conditions on the Project site are not suitable for its intended use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. (5) Comments from the State Department of Conservation have been received and reviewed. A written response to these comments has been prepared and forwarded to the State Department of Conservation.

As noted above, the October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan incorporated the revisions requested by Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR), the agency responsible for reclamation plan review in the Department of Conservation. These revisions remain unchanged in the Reduced Fill Alternative that was provided to DMR in August 2024.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Variance PV-531-22:
(1) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.

The Rockaway Quarry is the only quarry in the City of Pacifica known to staff that has not completed the reclamation required following its closure. Therefore, the Project site is subject to the special circumstance of being an unreclaimed quarry. Another special circumstance applicable to the Project site is that the HPD overlay district has been applied to the property. Some of the stated purposes of the HPD overly district in PMC section 9-

4.2252 are intentions to preserve natural terrain and topographic features. However, the Project site is a former quarry which has oversteep hillsides resulting from past mining activity which in turn results in artificially steep contours and lower allowable HPD coverage. Lastly, as explained in this staff report, another special circumstance for the Reduced Fill Alternative is that reclamation of the former quarry is required by state law, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, which is incorporated in PMC Title 9, Chapter 2 by reference. Therefore, reclamation of the former quarry is required.

Among the HPD overlay district’s stated purposes in PMC Section 9-4.2252 is to regulate new development to preserve natural hillside topography. However, while the Reduced Fill Alternative would facilitate future development of the site, it does not contemplate development as part of the reclamation effort. Therefore, the Reduced Fill Alternative is not development as contemplated in the HPD overlay district standards (such as buildings, roads, and utilities).

Based on the HPD’s orientation towards regulating new development, the formula for allowable HPD coverage in PMC section 9-4.2257 is not designed to address a quarry reclamation project. The extent of grading required for a typical development project would generally be considerably less than the extensive grading required to reclaim the former quarry that is the subject of the Reduced Fill Alternative. Therefore, the formula to calculate coverage allowed within the HPD overlay district in PMC Section 9-4.2257 is not designed or intended to regulate the extent of grading required for quarry reclamation.

As a result, the amount of allowed coverage under the HPD regulations is insufficient to accomplish reclamation of the former quarry site. Also, as noted above, the HPD coverage formula in PMC Section 9-4.2257 is driven primarily by site area and average slope of a

7.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
14 site. When this is applied to a former quarry with slopes that are oversteep due to past mining activity, the result is significantly less allowable coverage than a non-quarry site.

Thus, in light of the types of development that the HPD regulations seek to regulate, and the assumptions of the type of development that led to the mathematical formula for calculating allowable HPD coverage, application of the HPD coverage formula to the Project site would deprive the property of privileges under the HPD regulations that would be enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, and would deprive the property owner of the opportunity to complete quarry reclamation as required by state law and the PMC.

In terms of other property in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification (currently, C-3X/HPD/CZ), there are no other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. However, as it pertains to the HPD overlay district that is directly at issue with this variance, there are several properties to the north and to the east across Highway 1 that are zoned with the HPD overlay district as shown in Attachment B to the staff report.

The circumstances surrounding each of these other properties can be distinguished from the Reduced Fill Alternative: the Mori Point property to the north is not subject to the HPD regulations because it is owned by the federal government; and, the privately-owned parcels to the east are not former quarries and would require HPD coverage for purposes of new development, not quarry reclamation.

Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding that special circumstances are applicable to the Project site, including its topography that resulted from its former use as a quarry, and that the strict provisions of the HPD coverage limits to the Quarry Parcel would prevent the Applicant from accomplishing legallyrequired reclamation of the former quarry site, which is a unique requirement applicable to the Project site that is not applicable to any other property in the vicinity that is located within the HPD overlay district.
(2) That the granting of such variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.

As more fully described in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that analyzed the Reduced Fill Alternative, no potentially significant environmental impacts would result from the it after imposition of required mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. These include but are not limited to impacts to slope stability, noise, air quality, and transportation, which have a direct relationship to public health, safety, and the general welfare. The grading that would be authorized by this variance would improve safety at the Project site by eliminating overly steep slopes, creating safer slopes ranging from 5:1 to 2:1 inclination, and establish formal trails for hiking as a replacement for unsafe informal trails. In addition, the reclamation of a former quarry is required by state law and the PMC, which are designed to minimize impacts to public health, safety, and the general welfare that result from past quarry operations.

Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to make this finding that the granting of the variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, would not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the Project site and the Reduced Fill Alternative will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the area.

7.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
15 (3) Where applicable, that the application is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

As more fully described above, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with Design Guidelines related to Hillside Development, specifically those related to slope stability and erosion; visual impact; and access difficulty. (4) If located in the Coastal Zone, that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Local Coastal Plan.

While located within the Coastal Zone, the Quarry Parcel and Eastern Parcel are located in an Area of Deferred Certification and are not included within the City of Pacifica’s Local Coastal Program. Therefore, the California Coastal Commission retains coastal development permit issuance authority on the Project site and this finding is not applicable to the proposed variance.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Tree Permit TP-1-22:
(1) The condition of the tree, presence of disease, pest infestation, damage, public nuisance, risk, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and/or interference with utility services.

The Reduced Fill Alternative is intended to reclaim a former quarry. Reclamation of former quarries is uncommon in the City of Pacifica. Therefore, it is not a project type that was considered in the creation of the criteria for removal of protected trees in Ordinance No. 884-C.S. Typically, protected tree removal would be considered in light of proposed buildings and supporting utilities on a project site. In this instance, the major activity on the Project site is proposed grading to fill oversteep slopes and restore them to an approximate pre-mining condition. To that end, protected tree removal is necessary and justified in the case of the Reduced Fill Alternative wherever extensive grading must be performed to reclaim the Project site as required by SMARA and PMC Title 9, Chapter 2.

Significant grading of the type proposed with the Reduced Fill Alternative would potentially bury entire trees if not removed where the grading is proposed to be the deepest.

The presence of buried trees could destabilize the final graded slopes which necessitates tree removal to preserve public health and safety by ensuring stable slopes following reclamation. In other cases where grading may not fully bury the protected trees, even small quantities of grading in the immediate vicinity of a tree can have deleterious effects.

In those cases, tree removal and replacement is advisable for long-term health of the planted trees.
(2) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.

Reclamation of the Project site, which is a former quarry, is required pursuant to SMARA, which is incorporated by reference in PMC Title 9, Chapter 2. The reclamation must ensure the site results in a condition which is “readily adaptable for alternative land uses and create[s] no danger to public health or safety.” Thus, as an unreclaimed former quarry, the Project site currently cannot be utilized for any non-quarry land use. Accordingly, the protected tree removal is necessary to allow the reclamation to occur so that an economically viable use of the Project site can be considered by the City in the future in accordance with the General Plan.

7.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
16 (3) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it.

The October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan included a geotechnical report that evaluated slope stability titled “Geotechnical Investigation Rockaway Quarry Reclamation, Pacifica, California”, dated December 10, 2018, prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. The report, which was peer reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, ENGEO Incorporated, concluded that the proposed quarry reclamation plan could be constructed safely on the site, subject to the recommendations in the report, including removal of the protected trees.

The Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Reclamation Plan is geotechnically feasible, based on the Applicant provided Preliminary Concept Plan, and Geotechnical Report. In that the Reduced Fill Alternative does not affect tree removal, it does not affect this finding. (4) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.

As noted above, removal of the protected trees would improve public health, safety, and welfare of the area and the City as a whole by allowing the reclamation of the quarry that would eliminate overly steep, unsafe slopes by grading the Project site to slopes no more than 2:1 and constructing formal public access trails. The required replanting of replacement trees would eventually restore the scenic beauty associated with trees on the Project site. Removal of the relatively small number of protected trees in relation to the large size of the Project site would not result in adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, or historic value on the Project site or immediate surroundings.
(5) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support.

The Quarry Parcel is 47.13 acres. The very large size of the parcel will ensure that the 114 replacement trees required by Mitigation Measure 4.3-7(a) can be installed and maintained on the Project site in a healthy manner.

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the criteria for approval of a tree removal permit to remove 25 protected trees have been met by the Reduced Fill Alternative.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A, and Mitigation and Reporting Program, as set forth in Exhibit B, for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and approving Specific Plan SP-179-22, Quarry Use Permit UP 71-16, Variance PV-531-22, and Tree Permit TP-1-22 (File No. 2016-001) subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this Resolution, and adoption of the Legislative Enactments, to reclaim and restore the former Rockaway Quarry as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), incorporated by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”), on the former Rockaway Quarry, approximately 86-acre in area, located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150- 120 and 018-150-150).
* * * * *

7.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
17 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of September 2024.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Sue Vaterlous, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

7.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-9645-5399 v1

EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact
Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036

7.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-9645-5399 v1

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings are in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:

Part A: Findings regarding the environmental review process and the contents of the Final EIR.

Part B: Findings regarding the significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative, and the mitigation measures for those impacts identified in the Final EIR and adopted as conditions of approval.

Part C: Findings regarding the reasonableness of the range of alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR.

Because there are no significant impacts of the Revised Project that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation and the Planning Commission is approving the Reduced Fill Alternative, whose impacts are less than the Revised Project, the Planning Commission need not adopt findings rejecting alternatives and the Planning Commission need not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The Planning Commission certifies that these findings are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings, concerning the environmental issues identified and discussed in the Final EIR.

The Planning Commission adopts the findings and the statement in Parts A, B, and C for the Revised Project and Reduced Fill Alternative.

In addition to the findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures, Part D identifies the custodian and location of the record of proceedings, as required by CEQA.

Part A. Environmental Review Process
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
On September 2, 2020, the City issued a Notice of Preparation announcing the intended preparation of the Draft EIR and describing its proposed scope. The public review period for the Notice of Preparation complied with the required 30-day requirement, extending from September 2 until October 12, 2020. The City held a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR on September 16, 2020 for the purpose of informing the public and receiving comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be prepared for the Project. The scoping meeting was held online, via Zoom.

The City received seven comment letters during the comment period on the Notice of Preparation from public agencies and individuals, included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR.

7.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-2
Preparation of the EIR
The City completed the Draft EIR for the Project and, beginning on February 16, 2022, the City made the Draft EIR available for review and comment. A Notice of Availability was published and the period for receipt of comments on the Draft EIR remained open for 45 days. Copies of the Draft EIR document were made available at the Pacifica Planning Department, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California 94044, and on the City’s website at: www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/environmental_documents.

During the comment period, the City received 122 comment letters. The letters were authored by two State and local agencies, three organizations, and the remaining comment letters were received from interested individuals.

The Final EIR was completed and available to commenting public agencies on or before January 13, 2023.

The Final EIR contains all of the comments received during and immediately after the public comment period, together with written responses to significant environmental issues raised in those comments, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Although the Applicant revised the Project subsequent to preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs, the City’s CEQA consultant has evaluated the Applicant’s changes and determined they do not change the analysis and conclusions in the Draft and Final EIRs or require recirculation of the EIR.

The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to all comments raising significant environmental issues.

Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR, but before certification of the Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes

7.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-3
insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard, which include the following:

1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project (or an alternative), but the Project's proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Having reviewed all the information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the Draft EIR. No new or substantial changes to the Draft EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the Draft EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, or additions to the Draft EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts, and do not include any new mitigation measures that would have a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required.

Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Revised Project In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative, the Planning Commission recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues. The Planning Commission acknowledges that it has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters, and reports regarding the Final EIR and its own experience and expertise in these environmental issues. The Planning Commission acknowledges that it has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, by the City’s consultants, and by staff, addressing those comments. The Planning Commission acknowledges that it has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Planning Commission

7.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-4
acknowledges that in turn, this understanding has enabled the Planning Commission to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The Planning Commission accordingly certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR.

Part B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Planning Commission acknowledges that these findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the Planning Commission regarding the environmental impacts of the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative and the mitigation measures identified by the Final EIR and adopted by the Planning Commission as conditions of approval for the Reduced Fill Alternative.

The Planning Commission acknowledges that in making these findings, the Planning Commission has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and significance thresholds used in the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a judgment within the discretion of the Planning Commission; the significance thresholds used in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the EIR preparers and City staff; and the significance thresholds used in the EIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Revised Project and the Reduced Fill Alternative.

In particular, the EIR relied on significance criteria for evaluating impacts that are tailored to this type of project. The criteria used in this EIR to determine whether an impact is or is not “significant” are based on (a) CEQA-stipulated “mandatory findings of significance” listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15065; (b) the relationship of the Project effect to the adopted policies, ordinances and standards of the City and of responsible agencies; and (c) commonly accepted practice and the professional judgment of the EIR authors and City staff.

Exhibit A attached to these findings and incorporated herein by reference summarizes the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about the Project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation. This exhibit does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, Exhibit A provides a summary description of each significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission, and states the Planning Commission’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Planning Commission ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures,

7.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-5
except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The Planning Commission adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to these findings as Exhibit B to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Planning Commission acknowledges that in adopting these mitigation measures, the Planning Commission intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended for approval by the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from Exhibit B, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in Exhibit B fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The Planning Commission hereby finds that the adopted mitigation measures are changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Fill Alternative which mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(f) was revised in response to recommendation made in a comment letter received by the City during the public review period. The revision improves the efficacy of the measure, and does not alter the analysis or conclusion presented in the EIR. Modifications were not made to any other mitigation measures in response to comments.

Part C. Alternatives
Summary of Discussion of Alternatives in the Final EIR
The Final EIR evaluates four potential alternatives to the Project and the Planning Commission is approving the Reduced Fill Alternative. The EIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in comparison with the Project and the relative ability of each alternative to satisfy project objectives.

Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the Planning Commission certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR. The Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Final EIR is incorporated in these findings by reference.

The Final EIR describes and evaluates in detail four alternatives to the Project. The Planning Commission acknowledges that as set forth in section B above, the Planning Commission has adopted mitigation measures that reduce all of the significant environmental effects of the Reduced Fill Alternative to a less-than-significant level.

7.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-6
Accordingly, CEQA does not require the Planning Commission to adopt findings rejecting the alternatives not being approved. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission acknowledges that the reasons for the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative instead of the remaining alternatives are presented below. The Planning Commission finds that the Reduced Fill Alternative would satisfy the Project Objectives, and the remaining alternatives are unable to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Reduced Fill Alternative. The Planning Commission further finds that, on balance, none of the remaining alternatives has environmental advantages over the Reduced Fill Alternative that are sufficiently great to justify approval of such an alternative instead of the Reduced Fill Alternative, in light of each such alternative’s inability to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Reduced Fill Alternative. Accordingly, the Planning Commission determines to approve the Reduced Fill Alternative instead of approving one of the remaining alternatives.

Description of Project Objectives
The project objectives are:
• Protect Public Health and Safety: Create safe slopes in place of existing unsafe conditions in order to minimize potential danger to public health and safety.
• Minimize Grading: Minimize grading to the maximum extent practicable in a manner that is consistent with the other objectives and maintains an average 2:1 slope on project site.
• Safe Pedestrian and Emergency Vehicle Access: Provide for safe pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the project site based on Reclamation Plan elevations.
• Provide Dedicated Public Trails to Provide Safe Pedestrian Access:

Establish dedicated trails that allow safe public access through the project site between the Rockaway Beach commercial district and the Mori Point segment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in accordance with the Coastal Act.
• Restoration: Mitigate and restore prior physical disturbances resulting from past quarrying activity on the project site.
• Improved Water Quality: Provide for erosion control measures, land stewardship and maintenance to reduce sediment transport from the project site into Calera Creek (which drains into the Pacific Ocean) in order to improve the creek’s water quality.
• Discourage Illegal Trespassing: Reclaim the project site in a manner that provides secure and safe public access and use in lieu of the existing homeless encampments, vagrancy and threats to the potential public use which characterize the existing conditions on the project site due to the cessation of quarrying activities.
• Improved Scenic Corridor and Aesthetics: Restore the project site to prequarry conditions so that views of the Pacific Ocean are maintained in a manner supporting a future alternate use in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica General Plan.

7.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-7
• Self-sustaining: Reclaim the property such that additional maintenance or other management activities are not required.
• Meet All SMARA Standards: Reclaim the project site such that it meets all applicable SMARA standards after reclamation.

Discussion and Findings Relating to the Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR
Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR evaluates the following four alternatives, which are summarized below:
• Reduced Fill Alternative;
• No Project Alternative;
• Single Access Alternative;
and
• Open Trails Alternative.

Reduced Fill Alternative.

The Reduced Fill Alternative would implement the components of the Reclamation Plan, but with alterations to the project’s filling and grading components, due to a reduction in the amount of imported fill. Under the Reduced Fill Alternative, a reduction in fill that still meets SMARA requirements and slope stability would be used. While the reduced fill would alter the amount of fill within the Quarry Pit, the Alternative would still complete the remaining reclamation activities proposed under the Project, including the installation of new trails, improvements to existing trails, addition of hazard signs, regrading of loose soil, installation of new wetlands, installation of temporary and permanent culverts, and revegetation plan.

The Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Fill Alternative would generally achieve the Project’s objectives and would result in fewer impacts than the Project in several resource areas. However, impacts would be similar in the majority of resource areas, such as biological resources and hydrology and water quality. The Planning Commission approves this Alternative.

No Project Alternative.

Under CEQA, a “No-Project Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a project with the impacts of not proceeding with a project. A No-Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

7.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-8
The No Project Alternative is defined in the Draft EIR as the continuation of the existing conditions of the Project site, which is currently a side hill, open pit mine dominated by often steep slopes, non-native plant species, and informal accessways.

Because implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in the site remaining under current conditions, physical environmental impacts would not occur, and none of the project objectives would be met.

On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve any of the project objectives, and the Planning Commission rejects this Alternative.

Single Access Alternative.

The Single Access Alternative would include the development of a single access point at the SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection. Because a single access point at the SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection would serve as both ingress and egress to the project site, the project would no longer require the installation of the two temporary culverts. Without the installation of the culverts, the Alternative would result in a reduction in ground disturbance. However, the Alternative may also affect traffic safety by confining truck movements into the project site to an established intersection at the SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection rather than requiring trucks to decelerate while partially in the southbound travel lane and partially in a narrow shoulder to access the Old Quarry Road.

The Alternative would still be assumed to complete the project’s grading of slopes, installation of new trails, improvements to existing trails, addition of hazard signs, filling of the Quarry Pit, regrading of loose soil, installation of new wetlands, and revegetation.

However, the Alternative would not include the project’s replacement of a 12-inch culvert located near SR 1 along the access loop.

The Draft EIR determined that the Single Access Alternative would achieve only half of the Project’s objectives. The Alternative would result in similar or fewer impacts to most resource areas, but would result in greater impacts related to transportation and circulation relative to the Revised Project.

On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve a majority of the project objectives, and the Planning Commission rejects this Alternative.

Open Trails Alternative.

Under the Open Trails Alternative, the Project’s components in the Eastern Parcel would remain the same, but work in the Quarry Parcel, including the Project’s soil hauling, slope cuts, and grading components, would be implemented in two primary phases, such that temporary closures of the existing, on-site trails as a result of reclamation-related activities would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. The four sub-phases of the Project would instead be constrained to two primary phases for reclamation activities within the Quarry Parcel under this Alternative.

The Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Fill Alternative would generally achieve the Project’s objectives and would result in similar impacts to the Project in most

7.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-9
resource areas. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to alleviate environmental impacts in most resource areas. The Planning Commission rejects this Alternative.

Findings Regarding Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The Planning Commission finds that the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most but not all of the project objectives. The Planning Commission finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the Planning Commission and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the City’s ability to achieve the project objectives.

Part D. Record of Proceedings
Various documents and other materials constitute the record upon which the Planning Commission bases these findings and the approvals contained herein. The location of these documents and materials is: Pacifica Planning Department, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California 94044.
* * * * * * * *
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________________

KAVITHA KUMAR

INTERIM COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE

CITY OF PACIFICA

7.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-10

EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036

7.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-11
Exhibit C
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2016-001 Quarry Reclamation Plan (Reduced Fill Alternative) for the Former Rockaway Quarry on an approximately 86-acre site located west of State Route (SR) 1 and between Reina del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
City Council Meeting on September 23, 2024
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the quarry reclamation plan entitled “Reclamation Plan, Rockaway Quarry, Pacifica, CA”, dated February 14, 2022, and attached to Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 2023, as revised and supplemented by the Applicant’s submittal dated October 23, 2023, and further revised and supplemented by the Applicant’s submittal dated July 2, 2024, included by reference in the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 19, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. The Applicant shall incorporate all applicable mitigation measures as detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) into the Reduced Fill Alternative revised project.

3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each Phase as detailed in Condition 9 below, the Applicant shall submit a deposit in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Director for ongoing mitigation monitoring and reporting as required in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in Exhibit B to this Resolution.  Applicant shall replenish the deposit within 30 days of a request by the Community Development Director.

4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Phase 1 as detailed in Condition 9 below and/or building permit, the City Council of the City of Pacifica shall ordain Development Plan DP-86-22 and Rezoning RZ-210-22.

5. The City Council’s approval of the Development Permits shall take effect on and shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. For the purposes of this Resolution, “final determination” shall mean the effective date of the Ordinance approving Development Plan DP-86-22 and Rezoning RZ-210-22. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Community Development Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Community Development Director may administratively grant a single, one year extension provided, in the Community Development Director’s sole discretion, if the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one year extension.

In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the Project, the Community Development Director may toll expiration of the Development Permits during the pendency of such litigation.

7.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-12

6. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any grading for each Phase and/or building permit application.

7. Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction prior to issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit.

8. The Project shall not exceed 22.0 acres (54.45%) of Hillside Preservation District (HPD) “coverage” on the Quarry Parcel (APN 018-150-120) and 2.8 acres (7.16%) of HPD coverage on the Eastern Parcel (APN 018-150-150) under the provisions of PMC Section 9-4.2257 related to the Hillside Preservation District.

A.    Any grading on the Project site shall be conducted in the phases, as follows:

1. Phase 1:
a.    Phase 1 shall incorporate no more than 100,000 cubic yards of imported fill for the first two (2) years from the commencement of reclamation upon issuance of all required ministerial and discretionary approvals "Necessary Approvals" from State and Federal agencies (listed below in subsection B.). b.   Prior to issuance of any grading permit for commencement of reclamation at the Project site, the applicant shall submit a Phase 1 Grading and Management Plan subject to the maximum imported fill requirements set forth in (A)(1)(a) above.

2. Phase 2:
a.    Following Phase 1, any additional reclamation shall be subject to the following phasing and maximum imported fill amounts, contingent on a city-initiated, community-led draft specific plan (“Specific Plan”) for the Project site being prepared and distributed for public release within the first three (3) years from the commencement of Phase 1:
i. If a Specific Plan has been prepared, the applicant shall submit a Phase 2 Grading and Management Plan for the maximum amount of imported fill based on that amount necessary for development that is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan for development of the Project site.

ii. If no Specific Plan has been prepared, the applicant may submit a Phase 2 Grading and Management Plan for no more than an additional 100,000 cubic yards of imported fill.

7.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-13
b.   Prior to issuance of any grading permit for continued reclamation at the Project site for any additional grading and import of fill after completion of Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a Phase 3 Grading and Management Plan for any additional grading and import of fill, subject to the maximum imported fill amounts set forth in (A)(3)(a) above.

B.      Necessary Approvals:

The following approvals are required to be obtained prior to issuance of any grading permit for commencement of reclamation of the Project site:
• Coastal Development Permit (California Coastal Commission); • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit (US Army Corp of
Engineers) ;
• Section 7 Biological Opinion (US Fish and Wildlife Service) ; • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certification/Waiver or Issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (CA Regional Water Quality Control Board ); and
• SMARA Compliance Review (California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation).

10. Property owner shall fund all City costs for the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Quarry site immediately upon the City’s approval of the Reclamation Plan.  This obligation shall be documented in a Reimbursement Agreement to be entered into with the City, in a form acceptable to City, that provides for the owner’s full funding of City’s costs and expenses for the preparation a Specific Plan for the Quarry site, including without limitation, all costs related to community engagement, workshops and any public outreach as determined by City.

12. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for each Phase, the Applicant shall seek review and approval of the proposed Soil Management Plan from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for imported fill screening and provide evidence of DTSC approval to the City. The soil sampling interval shall be no less than every other truck importing the fill for reclamation and grading per the approved project.  The approved plan shall be provided to the City for implementation and monitoring.

7.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-14
submitted to the Community Development Department and be subject to peer review prior to acceptance/approval by the City.

15. All landscaping for revegetation and tree replacement shall be installed consistent with the final landscape plan prior to final inspection of the reclamation activities approved in the reclamation plan. Landscaping on the Project site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced, when necessary, as determined by the Community Development Director.

17. The Applicant shall not source import soil from any location in Santa Clara County (as proposed in the Revised Reclamation Plan submitted to the City of Pacifica on October 23, 2023).

18. Prior to the issuance of a grading for each Phase and/or building permit, Applicant shall enter into a post-reclamation Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for the ongoing maintenance of the storm drain system including but not limited to maintenance of the sediment junction structures.  The O&M Agreement shall be recorded on the Project site and bind the current and future property owners to the maintenance obligations contained in the Agreement.

19. An Annual Report shall be prepared by the City each year that summarizes the following:

A. Progress of the Reclamation Plan over the preceding year beginning January 1 and ending on December 31
B. Upcoming reclamation activities
C. All grading and development activity conducted in the reporting period on the property, and compliance with all conditions of approval imposed on the project.

D. In preparation of this Annual Report, the city may retain independent consultants to assist in data gathering, analysis, and report preparation.

E. The applicant shall provide all required information requested by the City including but not limited to truck traffic, soil management, biological surveys to monitor compliance of all conditions of approval that is needed for preparation of an Annual Report
F. The applicant shall fund all aspects of report preparation, including but not limited to reimbursement for staff time (including City Attorney time), consultant fees, and direct costs associated with report production and distribution.

G. The Annual Report shall be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting in March each year for acceptance.

7.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-15

20. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for each Phase.

21. Upon approval of permit, Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”).  City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding.  If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City.  Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The applicant’s obligation to indemnify under this condition shall continue for the duration of project, its construction, and any potential litigation whether the project is undertaken or not.

Engineering Division of the Public Works Department

22. Construction and grading for each Phase shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans.

23. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked, onto the public parking lot at the western terminus of Reina del Mar Avenue and Highway 1. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.

24. All recorded survey points, monuments, railroad spikes, pins, cross cuts on top of sidewalks and tags on top of culvert headwalls or end walls, whether within private property or public right-of-way, shall be protected and preserved. If survey point/s are altered, removed or destroyed, the Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the services of a licensed surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer to restore or replace the survey points and record the required map prior to occupancy of the first unit.

25. Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:

A. an accurate survey plan, showing:

1. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;

2. property lines labeled with bearings and distances;

7.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) A-16

3. edge of public right-of-way;

4. any easements on the subject property
B. a site plan, showing:

1. the whole width of right-of-way of Talbot Avenue, including existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, new pavement, driveway approach, sidewalk, curb & gutter, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any ground-mounted equipment, street monuments, any street markings and signage;

2. the slope of Talbot Avenue at the centerline;

3. adjacent driveways within 25’ of the property lines.

4. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10’ of the property lines.

C. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.

D. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

26. Applicant shall include a note on the grading permit plans for each Phase that says, “Any damage to improvements within the city right-of-way or to any private property, whether adjacent to subject property or not, that is determined by the City Engineer to have resulted from construction activities related to this project shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.”

27. Prior to approval of the building permit and/or grading permit for each Phase, Applicant shall provide an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer.

28. A City of Pacifica Encroachment Permit shall be obtained for all work undertaken in the public right-of-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City Standards, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or Caltrans Standard Specifications, Pacifica Municipal Code, Administrative Policies and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee and shall be completed prior issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Permit fees shall be determined per the current adopted fee schedule at the time of permit issuance.
*** END OF CONDITIONS ***

7.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment A Draft Resolution [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all State and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project (proposed project). The intent of the MMRP is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. Unless otherwise noted, the cost of implementing the mitigation measures as prescribed by this MMRP shall be funded by the applicant.

4.2 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
The MMRP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the EIR prepared for the proposed project. This MMRP is intended to be used by City of Pacifica staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMRP were developed in the EIR.

The EIR presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15370, as a measure that:
• Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; • Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP will provide for monitoring of reclamation activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City of Pacifica. The table attached to this report identifies the mitigation measures, the monitoring action for each mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMRP. The City will be responsible for monitoring compliance.

4. MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM

7.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

4.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the impact the measure is designed to address, the measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation schedule, and an area for sign-off indicating compliance.

7.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

4.3-1 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., threaten to
eliminate a plant
community) or through
habitat modifications, on
any plant species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or specialstatus species.

4.3-1(a) Prior to the commencement of
reclamation activities associated with
the proposed project, protocol-level,
focused plant surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist
during the documented bloom periods
of pappose tarplant, San Francisco Bay
spineflower, and rose leptosiphon. Two
site visits, including one early-season
(May) and one late-season (August)
shall be sufficient to cover the blooming
periods of the three species with
moderate potential to occur. Survey
timing may fluctuate based on blooming
periods of appropriate reference site
locations. If the special-status plant
species are not observed during the
focused plant surveys, no impact to
special-status plant species would
occur, and no mitigation would be
required. The results of the surveys
shall be submitted to the City’s
Planning Department.

4.3-1(b) If special-status plants are identified onsite during the focused plant surveys, the project applicant shall be
responsible for ensuring reclamation
activities avoid special-status plants
through preparation and submittal to
the City’s Planning Department of an
Avoidance Plan Report detailing
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to the
commencement of
reclamation
activities
Prior to the
commencement of
reclamation
activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
protection and avoidance criteria,
measures, and the extent to which
special-status plants were successfully
avoided. The Avoidance Plan Report
shall be subject to verification from the
City’s Planning Department.

If avoidance is infeasible, the qualified
biologist shall ensure seed collection
for affected special-status plants is
completed and plants are reestablished at a minimum of a one-toone ratio (number of newly established plants relative to the number of plants
impacted) in a preserved, suitable
habitat approved by City. The project
applicant shall document and submit
proof of compliance to the City’s
Planning Department.

4.3-1(c) Re-established special-status plant
populations shall be monitored annually
by the project applicant in accordance
with an approved Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan prepared in
consultation with the City’s Planning
Department, with annual monitoring
taking place for a minimum of five
years. The Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall include criteria,
subject to approval by all applicable
agencies, including the City’s Planning
Department, USFWS, and CDFW,
detailing the survival ratio required of
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Annually for a
minimum of five
years

7.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
re-established populations and
performance standards for further
replanting for any re-established
special-status plant species that do not
survive. Reports describing
performance results shall be prepared
and submitted for years one, three, and
five of the monitoring period.

4.3-2 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., cause a
wildlife population to
drop below selfsustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate an
animal community) or
through habitat
modifications, on
California red-legged
frog and San Francisco
garter snake.

4.3-2(a) Prior to beginning any grounddisturbing work at the project site, the project applicant shall ensure
employees of the proposed project
attend a Worker Environmental
Awareness Training Program (WEAP).

The WEAP shall consist of a brief
presentation by a USFWS-approved
biologist, which may be given either inperson or via an online teleconferencing presentation. The
program shall include a description of
visual identification of any specialstatus species and required habitat, an explanation of the status of these
species and their protection,
consequences of non-compliance, and
a description of the project-specific
measures being taken to reduce effects
to these species. Documentation of the
training (i.e., a sign-in sheet) shall be
retained at the site and shall be
submitted with applicable reports to the
City’s Planning Department.

City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to beginning
any grounddisturbing work at
the project site

7.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.3-2(b) Prior to initiation of reclamation
activities, a take permit shall be
obtained by the project applicant from
USFWS for CRLF. As part of acquiring
a take permit, a Biological Opinion from
the USFWS shall be acquired through
Section 7 Consultation. The project
applicant shall adhere to all compliance
measures in the Biological Opinion,
which shall be incorporated into the
Section 404 Nationwide Permit issued
by USACE. Proof of compliance shall
be submitted to the City’s Planning
Department.

4.3-2(c) Prior to initiation of reclamation
activities, a qualified biologist shall
place exclusionary fencing around the
project’s proposed areas of disturbance
(i.e., where reclamation is proposed to
occur in the Quarry Parcel and Eastern
Parcel) to prevent CRLF and SFGS
from entering such locations. Fencing
shall consist of silt fence or suitable
substitute (e.g., ERTEC 48-inch highvisibility orange fencing), which shall be buried at least six inches below the
surface (or sealed in a like manner) to
prevent incursion under the fence, and
will stand at least 36 inches above
ground. The fence shall also be made
of an opaque material. Exit funnels
shall be installed to allow any animals
that may be occupying the project’s
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
USFWS
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to initiation of
reclamation
activities
Prior to initiation of
reclamation
activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

Exclusionary fencing shall be inspected
by and maintained throughout the
areas of disturbance by the qualified
biologist. Fencing shall be removed
only when all reclamation equipment is
removed from the site. The
exclusionary fence shall be checked for
breaches on a daily basis by the
qualified biologist. However, if a
qualified biologist is not required to be
on-site for biological monitoring or other
tasks, an on-site representative may be
appointed to check the fence on a daily
basis and conduct repairs. If an on-site
representative is conducting
inspections and repairs, a qualified
biologist shall verify the fence status on
a weekly basis to assure repairs are
occurring as needed. A comprehensive
fencing plan shall be submitted for
appropriate agency approval to the
City’s Planning Department.

4.3-2(d) Within 48 hours prior to any reclamation
activities, a qualified biologist shall
conduct surveys for CRLF and SFGS in
and adjacent to the project’s proposed
areas of disturbance. A qualified
biologist shall conduct the foregoing
surveys on an ongoing basis before
commencement of any reclamation
activity. A qualified biologist shall be onsite during ground-disturbing activities, City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Within 48 hours
prior to any
reclamation
activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
including fence installation and the
operation of heavy equipment (e.g.,
during grading). The qualified
biologist(s) shall be given authority to
stop any work that may result in take of
a listed species. If at any time a CRLF
is observed on-site and relocation is
necessary, the biologist shall transport
and release the animal to a suitable
relocation site within Calera Creek,
outside of the areas of disturbance. If a
SFGS is observed within the areas of
disturbance, work shall be halted until
the animal leaves the location of its own
volition. If CRLF or SFGS is observed,
the qualified biologist shall document
the occurrence and submit proof of
compliance to the City’s Planning
Department.

4.3-2(e) At the close of each working day, to
prevent inadvertent entrapment of
wildlife, any excavated, steep-walled
holes or trenches more than 12 inches
deep shall either be covered or have
one or more escape ramps installed
that are constructed of earth fill or
wooden planks. Before any such holes
or trenches are filled, they shall be
inspected for wildlife by a qualified
biologist. The qualified biologist shall
document and submit proof of
compliance to the City’s Planning
Department.

City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
At the close of each
working day

7.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.3-2(f) Prior to and throughout reclamation
activities, the project applicant shall
ensure the following measures are
implemented at the project site to
additionally protect against take of
CRLF and SFGS: (1) The proposed
project shall not involve the operation of
heavy equipment on-site from 30
minutes before sunset to 30 minutes
after sunrise, year-round, thereby
avoiding disturbances during the most
active times for CRLF and SFGS; (2)
The boundaries of the areas of
disturbance shall be clearly delineated
with highly visible stakes, fencing, or
flagging; (3) Any food-related trash
shall be disposed of in closed
containers and removed from the
project site daily, to eliminate
attractants of predators; (4)
Monofilament netting or similar material
shall not be used on any erosion control
devices specified in the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Program
(SWPPP); (5) The use of temporary
erosion and sediment control products
(such as fiber rolls, erosion control
blankets, and mulch control netting)
that contain plastic netting, including
photodegradable plastic netting, shall
be prohibited. Only products that
contain loose-weave natural-fiber
netting, or that do not contain netting,
shall be allowed. Heavy-duty silt fences
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to and
throughout
reclamation
activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
reinforced by plastic or metal netting
shall also be prohibited. All temporary
erosion and sediment control products
shall be promptly removed when no
longer required; and (6) All vehicle
traffic shall be restricted to established
or temporary access roads and
reclamation areas, and a site-wide 20
mph speed limit shall be observed. The
project applicant shall document and
submit proof of compliance to the City’s
Planning Department.

4.3-2(g) Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Final Dust Control Plan shall
include the following
recommendations, which shall be
subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer:
• The potential application area
shall be checked by the project
contractor prior to application
to ensure that wildlife is not
entrapped in a location where
any wildlife species would
come in direct contact with the
compound.

City Engineer Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit

4.3-3 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., cause a
wildlife population to
drop below selfsustaining levels,

4.3-3(a) Reclamation activities, such as tree and
vegetation removal, grading, or initial
ground-disturbance, shall be
conducted between September 1 and
January 31 (outside of the February 1
to August 31 nesting season) to the
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
September 1
through January 31,
or if during nesting
season, no more
than 14 days prior
to vegetation

7.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
threaten to eliminate an
animal community) or
through habitat
modifications, on
American peregrine
falcon, white-tailed kite,
San Francisco common
yellowthroat, yellow
warbler, and migratory
birds protected under the
MBTA.
greatest extent feasible. If reclamation
activities associated with the proposed
project must be conducted during the
nesting season, a pre-construction
nesting bird survey shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist no more than 14
days prior to vegetation removal or
initial ground disturbance. The survey
shall include the proposed areas of
disturbance and surrounding 250 feet
to identify the location and status of any
nests that could potentially be affected
either directly or indirectly by activities
associated with the proposed project.

The results of the survey shall be
submitted to the City’s Planning
Department.

4.3-3(b) If active nests of native nesting bird
species are located during the nesting
bird survey, a work exclusion zone shall
be established around each nest by the
qualified biologist. Established
exclusion zones shall remain in place
until all young in the nest have fledged
or the nest otherwise becomes inactive
(e.g., due to predation). Appropriate
exclusion zone sizes shall be
determined by a qualified biologist and
shall vary based on species, nest
location, existing visual buffers,
anticipated noise levels from
reclamation activities proposed in the
vicinity of the nest, and other factors.

City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
removal or initial
ground disturbance
Throughout the
duration of
reclamation
activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
An exclusion zone radius may be as
small as 50 feet for common,
disturbance-adapted species, or as
large as 250 feet or more for raptors.

Exclusion zone size shall be reduced
from established levels by a qualified
biologist, if nest monitoring findings
indicate that reclamation-related
activities do not adversely impact the
nest, and if a reduced exclusion zone
would not adversely affect the nest.

Proof of compliance shall be
documented by a qualified biologist and
submitted to the City’s Planning
Department.

4.3-5 Have a substantial
adverse effect on State
or federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means.

4.3-5(a) Prior to initiation of reclamation
activities, the project applicant shall
obtain the following aquatic resource
permits to proceed with proposed
impacts to seasonal wetlands: (1) a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the
USACE, (2) a Section 401 water quality
certification from the RWQCB, and (3)
a CDP from the CCC. All compliance
measures included in these permits
shall be adhered to by the project
applicant. Proof of compliance shall be
submitted to the City’s Planning
Department.

4.3-5(b) During reclamation, the project
applicant shall ensure the proposed
project includes a 4-to-1 on-site
wetland replacement for impacts to
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
USACE
RWQCB
CCC
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to initiation of
reclamation
activities
During reclamation
activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Waters of the U.S./State. Newly
created wetlands shall total 1.75 acres
of seasonal wetlands and be
implemented within the Eastern Parcel.

A complex of four tiered seasonal
wetlands totaling 1.55 acres shall be
constructed in an upland portion of the
Eastern Parcel that is currently
composed of non-native annual
grassland and coyote brush. In
addition, a 0.20-acre bentonite claylined pond shall be constructed to the west of the four seasonal wetlands,
providing high-quality breeding habitat
for CRLF and habitat for SFGS.

Existing foot trails shall be used for
construction access to minimize the
temporary impact footprint associated
with pond construction. All work
required to construct the 1.75 acres of
mitigation wetlands shall avoid existing
wetlands in the Eastern Parcel. A
wetland maintenance and monitoring
program, consistent with the
performance standards established by
the Section 404 and Section 401
permits and the CDP, shall be adopted
in coordination with the City’s Planning
Department to ensure that newly
created wetlands maintain long-term
functionality. The wetland maintenance
and monitoring program shall stipulate
USACE
RWQCB
CCC

7.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

4.3-7 Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance.

4.3-7(a) Prior to the removal of any on-site
trees, the project applicant shall obtain
authorization for heritage tree removal
from the Planning Commission or City
Council, and shall obtain authorization
of a logging operation by the Planning
Commission or City Council. All trees
removed (heritage trees and nonheritage trees) shall be replaced in like kind in the case of native species or
with a native species in the case of nonnative species. Minimum replacement size shall be 24-inch box unless a
smaller size is recommended by a
landscape architect licensed to practice
in the State of California in order to
increase the likely survivability of the
replacement tree. Tree replacement
shall occur at a ratio of two replacement
trees per one removed tree. The
specific placement of the replacement
trees shall be determined by a qualified
biologist in consultation with a licensed
landscape architect. The final Tree
Replacement Plan, which shall include
the foregoing information, shall include
requirements for monitoring and shall
be subject to review and approval by
the City’s Planning Department.

4.3-7(b) Prior to the commencement of any
reclamation activity, a qualified arborist,
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to the removal
of any on-site trees

7.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry Final EIR
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
January 2023
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 4 ends

Pacifica City CouncilSeptember 23, 2024

Pacifica City Council
September 23, 2024