Agenda — Pacifica City Council, September 23, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
horticulturist, landscape architect, or
other qualified person shall prepare a
Tree Protection Plan to protect in place
the existing trees located within the
Eastern Parcel. The Tree Protection
Plan shall be consistent with all
applicable requirements set forth in
Section 4-12.07 of the Pacifica
Municipal Code and detail the
installation and maintenance of any
measures necessary to protect trees
within the Eastern Parcel. The Tree
Protection Plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the City’s
Planning Department.

City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to the
commencement of
any reclamation
activity
Chapter 4.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.4-2 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a unique
archeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section
15064.5 or disturb any
human remains,
including those interred
outside of dedicated
cemeteries.

4.4-2(a) In the event of the accidental discovery
or recognition of any human remains,
further excavation or disturbance of the
find or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains shall not occur until
compliance with the provisions of
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(e)(1) and (2) has occurred.

The Guidelines specify that in the event
of the discovery of human remains
other than in a dedicated cemetery, no
further excavation at the site or any
nearby area suspected to contain
human remains shall occur until the
County Coroner has been notified to
determine if an investigation into the
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
County
Coroner
NAHC
During grounddisturbing activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 267 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
cause of death is required. If the
Coroner determines that the remains
are Native American, then, within 24
hours, the Coroner must notify the
Native American Heritage Commission,
which in turn will notify the most likely
descendants who may recommend
treatment of the remains and any grave
goods. If the Native American Heritage
Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendant or most likely
descendant fails to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after
notification by the Native American
Heritage Commission, or the landowner
or his authorized agent rejects the
recommendation by the most likely
descendant and mediation by the
Native American Heritage Commission
fails to provide a measure acceptable to
the landowner, then the landowner or
his authorized representative shall
rebury the human remains and grave
goods with appropriate dignity at a
location on the property not subject to
further disturbances. If human remains
are encountered, a copy of the resulting
County Coroner report noting any
written consultation with the Native
American Heritage Commission shall
be submitted as proof of compliance to
the City of Pacifica Planning
Department.

7.b
Packet Pg. 268 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

4.4-2(b) If any prehistoric or historic artifacts,
other indications of cultural deposits,
such as historic privy pits or trash
deposits, or Tribal Cultural Resources,
are found once ground disturbing
activities are underway, all work within
the vicinity of the find(s) shall cease and
the find(s) shall be immediately
evaluated by a qualified archaeologist
and appropriate Native American Tribe,
if applicable. If the find is determined to
be a historical or unique archaeological
resource, the applicant shall make
available contingency funding and a
time allotment to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures
or appropriate mitigation (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5). Work
may continue on other parts of the
project site while historical or unique
archaeological resource mitigation
takes place (Public Resources Code
Sections 21083 and 21087).

The requirements of Mitigation
Measures 4.4-2(a) and 4.4-2(b) shall be
included via notation on all project
grading plans prior to the issuance of
grading permits, to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director.

City Planning
Director
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits and during
ground-disturbing
activities

4.4-3 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal
Cultural Resource as

4.4-3 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-
2(a) and 4.4-2(b).

City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits and during

7.b
Packet Pg. 269 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
defined in Public
Resources Code,
Section 21074.
ground-disturbing
activities
Chapter 4.5 – Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources

4.5-3 Be located on a
geological unit or soil
that is unstable, or that
would become unstable
as a result of the project,
and potentially result in
on or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse, or be located
on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1B of
the Uniform Building
Code.

4.5-3 Prior to approval of Improvement Plans,
a qualified geotechnical engineer, in
coordination with the City Engineer,
shall review the improvement plans and
specifications to assess whether all
recommendations from the
Geotechnical Investigation report
prepared for the proposed project have
been properly implemented and shall
evaluate if additional analysis and/or
recommendations are required. The
recommendations include, but are not
limited to: the installation of subdrains;
the installation of keyways; benches
with paved drainage ditches within the
2:1 cut slopes below the Hilltop; grading
to address areas containing
undocumented fill; and several
recommendations regarding the
materials used for fill, such as requiring
the use of well-graded import material
with very low to moderate expansion
potential (Expansion Index less than
90), a Plasticity Index less than 20, and
that is free of organic material and
construction debris.

City Engineer Prior to approval of
Improvement Plans

4.5-5 Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource

4.5-5 In the event that paleontological
resources, including individual fossils or
assemblages of fossils, are
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
During grounddisturbing activities

7.b
Packet Pg. 270 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
or site or unique geologic
feature.
encountered during construction
activities all ground disturbing activities
shall immediately halt and a qualified
paleontologist shall be procured to
evaluate the discovery for the purpose
of recording, protecting, or curating the
discovery as appropriate. The qualified
paleontologist shall provide the City of
Pacifica Planning Department with a
report detailing the findings and method
of curation or protection of the
resources for review and approval by
City Planning staff prior to
recommencing reclamation activities.

Chapter 4.6 – Hydrology and Water Quality

4.6-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality
during implementation.

4.6-1 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:
• Dust palliative (e.g., Gorilla-Snot)
shall not be applied immediately
before or after a precipitation
event in order to prevent
potential runoff of the compound
while it is in liquid form. Rather,
the compound shall be applied to
dry soil and allowed to cure
completely before water is
applied to the road surface by
City Engineer Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit

7.b
Packet Pg. 271 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
either artificial means or by
precipitation;
• Spill containment materials shall
be kept on-hand during
application to prevent the
compound from entering Calera
Creek. Such materials may
include sand, clay, or other
suitable absorbent materials.

Any spills shall be attended to
immediately, and abatement
materials shall be properly
disposed of in an approved
landfill; and
• Care shall be taken to ensure
that applied dust palliative does
not enter any sensitive habitat
area. Application of the
compound shall occur in a
localized fashion such that it is
only applied on roadways in need
of dust control.

Chapter 4.8 - Noise

4.8-1 Generation of a
substantial temporary
increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess
of standards established
in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or

4.8-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Final Dust Control Plan shall
include the exact location at which the
off-site water truck would refill. Filling of
the water truck shall occur only
between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM. The location of the water source
shall not be within 250 feet of any
residence, school, park, or religious
City Engineer Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit

7.b
Packet Pg. 272 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
applicable standards of
other agencies.
facility. The Final Dust Control Plan,
including the identified water refill
location, shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.

Chapter 4.10 - Transportation

4.10-3 Substantially increase
hazards to vehicle safety
due to a geometric
design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment),
or result in inadequate
emergency access.

4.10-3(a) During soil hauling activities conducted
as part of the proposed Reclamation
Plan, including the off-site water truck
refilling conducted as part of the Dust
Control Plan, the project applicant shall
have a flagperson stationed at the
project egress to manage haul truck
queues in order to ensure full,
unobstructed public use of the public
parking lot located west of the SR
1/Reina Del Mar Avenue intersection is
maintained and project haul truck
queues do not exceed the 140-foot
storage limit for eastbound traffic at the
SR 1/Reina Del Mar Avenue
intersection. The inclusion of a
flagperson to manage truck queues at
the foregoing location shall be included
in the Final Reclamation Plan, subject
to review and verification by the City of
Pacifica Planning Director.

4.10-3(b) Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Final Dust Control Plan shall
be revised as required by Mitigation
Measure 4.8-1 to include the exact
location at which the off-site water truck
City Planning
Director
City Engineer
During soil hauling
activities
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit

7.b
Packet Pg. 273 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
would refill and to establish a time
limitation of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM for
water truck refilling. The City Engineer
shall further restrict the time period and
location for water truck refilling, as
necessary, to abide by the following
standards:

The project applicant shall submit to the
City Engineer the truck turning template
for the specific model of water truck to
be used;
The project applicant shall submit to the
City Engineer a plan of the streets that
would be located within 500 feet of the
approved water refill location, which
shall include street widths and grades;
The final water refill location shall
provide sufficient space to
accommodate the water truck’s
movements, including turns and
reverses, based on the truck turning
template for the specific model of water
truck to be used; and
Temporary parking restrictions shall be
put in place near the final water refill
location, as necessary, to ensure that
adequate width is available to enable
the water truck’s movements based on
the truck turning template for the

7.b
Packet Pg. 274 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

Proof of compliance with the foregoing
standards, which shall be documented
in the Final Dust Control Plan, shall be
subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.

4.10-3(c) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. City Engineer Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit

7.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment A - Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (5761 : Quarry 4861-3338-3398 v1 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING REZONING RZ-210-22 AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP-86-22 (FILE NO. 2016-001) TO REZONE TO THE P-DX/HPD/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 WETLANDS 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)
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 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 C-3X/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 requiring 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
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

7.c
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 2
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, 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 Planning Commission; and

7.c
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 3
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 State Mining And Reclamation Act (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 in 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); 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 held a duly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2024, and introduced this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted a Resolution on September 23, 2024, to approve Appeal 1, deny Appeal 2, certify a final environmental impact report (“EIR”) including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), and findings of fact for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036) and approve the Development Permits subject to adoption of this ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced

7.c
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 4
recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted a Resolution on September 23, 2024, to certify a final environmental impact report (“EIR”) including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) and findings of fact for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090036).

Section 3. Findings. Specific findings of fact for approval of Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 are as follows:
• The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant.

As the ultimate earthwork/grading requirements for site development cannot be determined until the completion and approval of the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission has conditioned the Reduced Fill Alternative to a two-year term for a specified scope of work involving grading in the amount of 100,000 cubic yards of fill for reclamation until the final earthwork/grading requirements can be determined for future development upon completion and approval of the Specific Plan. The scope of work specified for the two-year term, as a condition of approval, can substantially be completed within that timeframe. The Planning Commission is not aware of any other information at this time to suggest that the Reduced Fill Alternative construction, as conditioned, cannot be completed within the time schedule submitted by the Applicant.
• Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, does not include “development” in the traditional sense.

It is a project to reclaim a former quarry by performing grading; constructing drainage and trail improvements; and undertaking revegetation. The two areas of the Project site, consisting of the Quarry Parcel and the Eastern Parcel, can exist independently or as a unified project following completion of the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned. In particular, the resulting use of the Project site prepares the site for its end use in accordance with the 2040 General Plan and includes trail improvements for public use that are integrated between the two parcels to form a comprehensive network of public trails, contributing to an environment of sustained desirability. • The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.

As noted above, rezoning to the P-D district is required by the HPD overlay district and, therefore, no other zoning district would be appropriate for the Project site.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would include the following components in order to have a beneficial effect on the present and potential surrounding uses:

A. 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.

B. Minimize Grading: Minimize grading to the maximum extent practicable in a manner that is consistent with the other objectives and maintains a maximum 2:1 slope on the Project site.

C. Safe Pedestrian and Emergency Vehicle Access: Provide for safe pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the Project site based on grading plan elevations.

7.c
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 5
D. 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.

E. Restoration: Mitigate and restore prior physical disturbances resulting from past quarrying activity on the Project site.

F. 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.

G. Discourage Illegal Trespassing: Reclaim the Project site in a manner that provides secure and safe public access and discourages unintended uses such as unauthorized encampments.

H. Facilitate the City of Pacifica 2040 General Plan vision for the Rockaway Quarry site: Prepare the for its end use, in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the 2040 General Plan. while maintaining and protecting the views of the Pacific Ocean I. Meet All SMARA Standards: Conduct initial grading for reclamation in accordance with all applicable SMARA standards after reclamation.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would improve safety of the site as compared to its existing condition characterized by excessively steep slopes and informal trails, and by constructing new improved trails designed for public use. The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding uses because it would result in reduction in project generated traffic, address past disturbances causing erosion, eliminate unsafe conditions, and prepare the site for end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. • The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.

The proposed point of ingress to the Project site is the former quarry road south of Reina del Mar Avenue. Inbound trucks would travel one-way from the ingress point through the site and would exit at the signalized intersection of SR 1 and Reina del Mar Avenue. The travel way would be an unpaved route that utilizes Gorilla Snot soil stabilizer to minimize dust from truck trips and would have sufficient queuing length to avoid truck backups onto SR 1 from reclamation activities. Therefore, the thoroughfare proposed for the Revised Project would be suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic during the projected four-year period of reclamation. The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would not have any increased traffic because there would be no changes in land use will occur. The increase in traffic during construction would be approximately nine trips/hour including 4 truck trip and 5 employee trips that represents a minimal and insignificant increase in traffic on adjacent street network. Additionally, the Planning Commission is requiring a Traffic Management Plan that will address truck trips and truck safety, and circulation off-site for review and approval by the City staff to ensure that the traffic generated is managed for safety. • Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area. (1) Any exception from the standard district requirement is warranted by the design of the project and amenities incorporated in the development plan.

Commercial development is not proposed as part of the Reduced Fill Alternative to the Revised Reclamation Plan.
• The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance

7.c
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 6
with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.

As discussed above, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would serve improve the existing conditions at the site with public access trails, and facilitate to prepare the site for end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan, but does not include any development. The improved trail uses from the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would provide an additional amenity for visitors and community residents.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following policy areas:

Open Space and Community Facilities Element
a. OC-G-5 | Open Space Preservation: Preserve open space that protects natural resources, visual amenities, and public health and safety. The top priority areas for conservation are beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillsides areas adjacent to existing open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and endangered species.

The Reduced Fill Alternative would result in public trails improvements in an area adjacent to Mori Point which is part of the GGNRA. The Project site is also an area that supports critical wildlife habitat and the Reduced Fill Alternative would include new wetlands areas and a California red-legged frog pond to enhance habitat for this special status species.
c. OC-G-7 | Trail System Expansion: Expand the trail system in Pacifica to create a connected trail network with communitywide links to open space and recreation facilities, as shown on Figure 6-2 [of the General Plan].

OC-I-53 | Rockaway Quarry: If a safe public route can be developed on the Quarry uplands, create coastal access along a new trail connecting Rockaway Beach with Mori Point, as part of a conservation proposal or new development.

OC-I-23 | New Segments of California Coastal Trail in Pacifica: Create new trail segments through Rockaway Quarry uplands and the Headlands as part of development or as separate Coastal Trail initiatives.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would create new trail segments through the Rockaway Quarry uplands and connect to trails in the Mori Point area of the GGNRA.

These would be new, improved, and safer trails within the Quarry uplands including connections to Mori Point in the GGNRA and to the existing Calera Creek Multi-purpose (CCMP) Trail that is a segment of the Coastal Trail. These new trails in the Quarry will provide beneficial secondary trails to branch from the Coastal Trail.

Conservation Element
d. CO-G-1 | Water Quality: Support the improvement of Pacifica’s water quality, including both surface water and groundwater, through Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, stream restoration, and riparian habitat restoration.

CO-I-12 | Infrastructure and Water Quality: Ensure that the design and construction of new infrastructure elements does not contribute to stream bank or hillside erosion or creek or wetland siltation, and incorporates site design and source control BMPs, construction

7.c
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 7
phase BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize impacts to water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would incorporate BMPs to control stormwater erosion and siltation during the course of reclamation as required by Title 6, Chapter 12 of the PMC. Stormwater and drainage improvements thereafter would be subject to review in accordance with all applicable laws for water quality protection that in combination with revegetation program for the site would improve surface water quality and riparian habitat.
e. CO-I-4 | Wetlands Preservation: Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Continue to require formal wetlands delineations subject to State or federal regulations prior to any proposed development project in an area where potential wetlands have been identified.

If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measures should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands.

Because of the severely disturbed post-mining condition of the Project site, extensive grading is required for reclamation and entirely avoiding impacts to wetlands on the Project site is not possible
Due to the presence of wetlands on the Project site, the Applicant performed a formal wetlands delineation pursuant to applicable regulations for three-parameter wetlands (federal regulations) and one-parameter wetlands (State regulations). The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would compensate for impacts to existing wetlands by constructing 1.75 acres of new wetlands areas consisting of 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond. The Applicant has received a provisional approval from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the Nationwide Permit (NWP) authorization on October 31, 2022, wherein the USACE noted that the Project must be in compliance with the terms of the NWP, the general conditions of the NWP Program, and the San Francisco District regional conditions, as well as any special conditions specified by the San Francisco District.
f. CO-I-68 | Resource Impact Mitigation: Ensure that new development analyzes and avoids potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historic or archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures as a condition of Project approval—such as avoidance, preservation in place, and excavation,—to reduce or avoid impacts.

In the event that historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines.

The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that may be used as guidelines.

As described in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City undertook an analysis of potential cultural and tribal cultural resources that may be present in the vicinity

7.c
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 8
of the Project site. The evaluation also included contact with the Native American Heritage Commission. An extended Phase I Survey and Historic Resource Evaluation Report, collectively encompassing the entirety of the project site were prepared by ALTA, that along with a concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) are consistent with the analyses and conclusions of the Draft EIR that identified no significant impact to cultural resources.

The Reduced Fill Alternative is unlikely to lead to the discovery of cultural or tribal cultural resources. However, in the event of an inadvertent discovery, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the Final EIR includes mitigation measures to ensure an appropriate response by the on-site work crew depending on the type of resource encountered.

Land Use Element
h. LU-I-25 | Rockaway Quarry Site: Enable the responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry Site.

Preparation of a specific plan for the Quarry site could achieve the desired development outcomes. Allowable development should provide City revenues, substantial public open space, and commercial uses and public spaces attractive to both visitors and local residents. Uses may include an inn or hotel; shops and restaurants; performance or conference spaces; and public uses. Ordinance No. 391 provides that residential uses are only authorized after a vote of the electorate. Development should be integrated with the Rockaway Beach district, to create an expanded visitor-oriented area in a memorable natural setting.

Environmental protection is a priority at this site and includes preserving upland areas as open space, preserving the riparian corridor along Calera Creek, and preserving critical habitat. Any development of the Quarry site will require detailed evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards and biological resources to ensure safe use of the site and that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; the likely footprint of development could be much smaller than the area designated.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would initiate reclamation of a former quarry operation, consistent with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and by Title 9, Chapter 2 of the PMC, that would occur concurrently with the specific planning process and facilitate preparation of the site for end use, in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Additionally, 1.55 acres of new seasonal wetlands and a new 0.20-acre California red-legged frog pond would be created. The reclamation once completed would result in a safer site with stable slopes
• The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would consist of 100,000 cubic yards of grading, associated drainage improvements, trail improvements, wetlands habitat creation, and related revegetation. The Design Guidelines are intended to address building and site design for development projects and are not applicable to the Reduced Fill Alternative because it lacks either of those components. However, to the extent that certain Design Guidelines would apply if the Reduced Fill Alternative was a development project, that discussion is provided below:

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT

7.c
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 9
A. Slope Stability and Erosion. Many of the hillside areas show signs of instability through creep and slippage. Drainage and erosion potential are also problems associated with hillside development.
• Obtain input from a geologist or soils engineer early in the design process. A geotechnical report may be required.
(b) Avoid construction near geologically fragile or unstable areas. (c) Use engineering techniques, such as drainage swales and channels, catch basins, and French drains to direct runoff.
(d) Use landscaping techniques such as netting, hydroseeding and selection of plants which have root systems which aid in stabilizing the soil.

The City’s Geotechnical Consultant has indicated that generally the Reduced Fill Alternative proposed by the Applicant is geotechnically feasible, based on the Preliminary Concept Plan of the Reduced Fill Alternative proposed by the Applicant, and Applicant provided Geotechnical Report. The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, requires a geotechnical report specific to the approved scope of work for review by the City prior to grading permit issuance. It is also the standard procedure of the Community Development Department to perform a design-level peer review of geotechnical reports during the building permit and/or grading permit phase if the project is approved.

Based on the discussion above, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with this design guideline, as applicable. if it was applicable to the Reduced Fill Alternative.

B. Visual Impact. Development on hillsides and ridges is often visible to neighbors and other residents in the vicinity, as well as those at a distance, such as motorists traveling on highway 1.

Hillside development also has the potential to block or impair established views from existing development.

The Reduced Fill Alternative does not include the development of any buildings that would block or impair established views. Therefore, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with this design guideline, as applicable.

C. Access Difficulty. Vehicular access and circulation in hillside development can often be unsafe or dangerous due to excessive slope and lack of adequate sight distance.

The Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would not include vehicular access and circulation in hillside areas; thus, it would avoid constructing such access that could be unsafe or dangerous due to excessive slope and lack of adequate site distance. Therefore, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with this design guideline, as applicable. • The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.

As discussed in further detail, above, the Reduced Fill Alternative, as conditioned, would be consistent with policies in the Open Space and Community Facilities Element, Conservation Element, and Land Use Element of the 2040 General Plan. Consistency with the Local Coastal Plan is not applicable because the project site is located within an area of deferred certification in the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

7.c
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 10
Section 4. Reclassification. Section Maps 16 and 17 of the Zoning Map of the City of Pacifica, as described in Section 9-4.302 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, are hereby amended as depicted in Exhibit 1 to this Ordinance. The specific area affected by this reclassification is more particularly described in the legal description included as Exhibit 2 to this Ordinance. The reclassification does not alter the existing Hillside Preservation District (HPD) or Coastal Zone Combining District (CZ) zoning applicable to the site, nor does it alter the voter approval requirement for rezoning to authorize residential development contained in Ordinance No. 391-C.S., all of which shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 5. Development Plan. The approved Development Plan DP-86-22 for the Project site, which shall be implemented through the development more particularly set forth in a specific plan approved in accordance with Article 22 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, shall be as set forth in the following Table 1:

TABLE 1
Standards Approved
Use 1) Quarry reclamation pursuant to a quarry reclamation plan approved by the City of Pacifica.
2) Open space.
3) Public trails.
4) Wetlands and other habitat mitigation areas required by a government agency pursuant to development approved by the City of Pacifica. 5) Storm drainage infrastructure.
6) Regulatory and directional signage.

Residential Use Residential use shall be prohibited on the property subject to this Development Plan unless all of the following conditions are met:
1) An affirmative public vote authorizes rezoning to allow residential use pursuant to Ordinance No. 391-C.S.
2) The City Council or the People of the City of Pacifica adopt an ordinance to rezone the property subject to this Development Plan.
3) This Development Plan is repealed and replaced or otherwise superseded with a Development Plan that authorizes residential use consistent with the above authorizations, or this Development Plan is amended to allow same, or the property is rezoned to another zoning classification that does not require approval of a Development Plan.

Maximum
Hillside
Preservation
District (HPD)
coverage
pursuant to
PMC Sec. 9-

4.2257
Quarry Parcel (APN 018-150-120): 22.0 acres (54.45%)
Eastern Parcel (APN 018-150-150): 2.8 acres (7.16%)
Import of fill Not more than 100,000 cubic yards of fill may be imported onto the property subject to this Development Plan, with additional fill as provided in the Project conditions of approval.

7.c
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 11
Zoning district
most similar in
nature and
function to the
area included in
this
Development
Plan
Regulations for area, coverage, density, yards, parking, height, and open ground area for P-D District users shall be guided by the regulations of the OS (Open Space) zoning district.

There are no structures proposed in this Development Plan.

Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption.

Section 8. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published once in The Pacifica Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Pacifica, California.
* * * * *

7.c
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861-3338-3398 v1 12
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, by the following vote:

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.c
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 4861
-3338-3398 v1
EXHIBIT1

7.c
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016
-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
4861-3338-3398 v1

7.c
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016
-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
4861-3338-3398 v1
EXHIBIT2

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

7.c
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) File No. 2016
-001
Quarry Reclamation Appeal
4861-3338-3398 v1

7.c
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment B Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Development Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 425 MARKET STREET
SUITE 2900
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
415.227.0900 PHONE
415.227.0770 FAX
BN 83242555v7
415.227.3508 Direct
aguerra@buchalte r.com July 2, 2024
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
Stefanie Cervantes, Interim Deputy Director
Planning Department
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation Plan – File No. 2016-001 Dear Kavitha and Stefanie:

As you know, Buchalter, APC, represents Paul Heule and The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC (“The Preserve”) and Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC (“Baylands”) regarding the land use approvals for reclamation of the Rockaway Quarry in the City of Pacifica (“Pacifica”). Baylands is processing a reclamation plan (“Reclamation Plan”) at The Preserve’s request to reclaim the Rockaway Quarry. The Preserve and Baylands appreciate the public and Planning Commission’s recent deliberations at the May 20, 2024 Study Session concerning the proposed Reclamation Plan and associated land use approvals referenced as File No. 2016-001.

The purpose of this letter is to supplement our prior submittals and address the Planning Commission’s comments regarding the proposed Reclamation Plan and again explain how the applicant approached the reclamation effort with an objective of further lessening the amount of imported fill. Our prior letter dated May 9, 2024, as well as our prior submittals from October 2023 are hereby incorporated by reference as many of the questions from the Planning Commission were addressed in the May 9, 2024 Letter and our prior application materials.

There is No “No Imported Fill” Option
The State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (“SMARA”) governs the Reclamation Plan. As we explained at the prior Planning Commission meetings and in our application submittals, surface mining operations are required to prepare and file a reclamation plan for closed mines. (Pub. Res. Code, § 2770.) Mining at the Rockaway Quarry resulted in an internal

7.d
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 2 ends

BN 83242555v7
bowl open to the east with adjoining bluffs to the west fronting the ocean. On the eastern (internal) side of those bluffs, mining left near-vertical rock faces, about 140 feet in height from the quarry floor to the shear zone on the main face and 60 feet in height from the sheer zone to the hilltop as described in the 2023 Reclamation Plan. To match the existing topography and, therefore, restore the hillock that once occurred on the Quarry site requires creating a rounded, naturalistic landform. This work requires 944,000 cubic yards of fill, as shown in the applicant’s proposed Reclamation Plan which is focused on leaving the site in a natural condition (see the John Zentner Land Planning and Restoration, LLC Memorandum entitled “Pacifica Quarry Fill” attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A (“Zentner Memorandum”).

Mr. Heule however, has attempted to further reduce the amount of fill necessary to fill the quarry. There is no “no fill” option because the quarry pit must be filled with something to reclaim it in accordance with SMARA. To identify other lower fill options, Walsh Engineering, the project engineer, evaluated the General Plan’s designation for the Quarry Site. The General Plan designates the project site as a Special Area. The site is zoned Visitor Serving Commercial.

Most of the permitted uses would require a relatively flat pad or terraced pads. Building such a pad would reduce the amount of fill required to about 653,000 cubic yards as explained in the June 21, 2024 Walsh Engineering Memorandum, Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Technical Responses to Items Noted in the May 20, 2024 City Study Session attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B (“Walsh Memorandum”). Reclaiming the site for General Plan consistent- uses trades off restoration of a natural hillslope for creation of a potential development site consistent with SMARA.

Development Pad with Reduced Fill Option
The applicant’s original Reclamation Plan proposed 1,055,000 cubic yards of fill in order to match the existing topography and meet SMARA’s requirements as explained in Exhibit A.

The applicant team then reduced the amount of fill to 944,000 cubic yards in the October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan. In response to comments and questions from the Planning Commission at its March 18, 2024 Public Hearing, the applicant team once again lowered the 944,000 cubic yards to 653,000 cubic yards by replacing imported fill with a pad consistent with General Plan land uses as explained at the May 20, 2024 Study Session. Even with these reductions, the Commission asked if the amount of imported fill could be further lowered.

The surrounding topography imposes a physical constraint in generating fill on site.

Exhibit B summarizes the engineering associated with generating fill material on site to fill the quarry. The reduced amount of fill associated with flat development pads does not rely on any specific type of development based on zoning. Regardless of the type of development, the reduced quantity fills the Quarry floor to a pad elevation of 85 feet and extends a 2:1 fill slope up 50 feet higher than the pad to the 135 foot elevation contour to restore the Quarry face. This conforms with SMARA while resulting in an estimated 5 acres of land area that could be

7.d
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 3 ends

BN 83242555v7
developed with General Plan land uses in the future, which represents about 64% of the 7.8 acre pad area shown on the General Plan Figure 4-7 as shown on the next page.

Another constraint to being able to generate fill on-site is the City’s Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Ordinance which also guides the maximum amount of coverage area allowed to be disturbed with reclamation or development. Removing more of the hilltop in order to generate material to fill the quarry will expand the grading limits for the disturbed area in conflict with the HPD Ordinance which requires that the existing hillside be preserved. Increasing the grading limits exceeds the allowable coverage area for HPD Requirements in conflict with the HPD Ordinance. As it is, the proposed modest topographic alteration contemplated with the proposed Reclamation Plan at 944,000 cubic yards necessitates a variance in order to comply with the allowable coverage area under the HPD. Removal of the hilltop1 to generate more onsite fill to balance the 653,000 cubic yards, for example, would expand the coverage area by another estimated 5 acres which would result in an even greater conflict with the HPD ordinance.

Further Clarifications to Reduced Fill Alternative
The Reduced Fill Alternative described in the Draft EIR contemplated that the Reclamation Plan would be designed to use the minimum amount of fill to meet SMARA requirements but the Draft EIR did not specify a specific amount. The Draft EIR Reduced Fill Alternative was designed to meet the basic project objectives including reclamation to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. Even though development is not proposed as an element of the Reclamation Plan as we explained at the Study Session and in our May 9, 2024 letter, the Reclamation Plan still needs to anticipate how to adapt the Quarry Site to allow future development in order to comply with SMARA.

My client needs to fill the quarry pit and grade the site to restore wetlands and habitat as part of reclamation. It takes approximately 653,000 cubic yards of fill (583,000 cubic yards of which is imported fill), to do that even with a future effort to implement development as reclamation proceeds. Without the ability to replace dirt with foundations, reclaiming the Rockaway Quarry requires a lot more dirt as demonstrated by the proposed 2023 Reclamation Plan. The reason is that the amount of fill needed to fill the quarry is driven by the existing topography and not by the type of development that may someday be developed on the Property. 1 Prior geologic investigations were conducted in conjunction with the 1996 and 1998 Reclamation Plans that demonstrated that removing the hilltop would require some combination of blasting, hammering, and excavation.

7.d
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 4 ends

BN 83242555v7

7.d
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 5 ends

BN 83242555v7
Approval of Reclamation to allow time to Plan for Future Development does not Constitute Piecemealing
Some commenters suggested at the Study Session that the City is required to conduct environmental review in one document for both the reclamation portion of the Project and future unknown development to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The purpose of this letter is to explain why CEQA does not require that the City evaluate unknown, speculative future development as part of the Reclamation Project.

Generally, CEQA defines a “project” as “an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,” and includes an activity “that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.” (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21065.) Meanwhile, the CEQA Guidelines (contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) further clarify this definition, explaining that a “project” is “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a) (emphasis added).) The “term ‘project’ refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies” but “does not mean each separate governmental approval.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(c).

As with most State and Federal environmental laws, CEQA, however, only requires an analysis of reasonably foreseeable future actions, not those that are speculative. CEQA requires environmental review of all phases of a project “that will foreseeably result from project approval.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.) However, courts have opined time and time again that environmental review need not analyze speculative and unknown activities. For example, the Laurel Heights Court held that an EIR does not need to evaluate a “specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in a planner's eye.” (Id. at p. 398.) “A detailed environmental analysis of every precise use that may conceivably occur is not necessary at this stage.” (Id.) See also the Court of Appeal’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2016) which held that an EIR need not analyze the potential for pumping of groundwater after the expiration of a 50-year term because any extension was speculative. (247 Cal.App.4th 326, 332, 350.) Also see, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 which held that an airport EIR need not include future projects that “existed only as concepts in long-range plans that were subject to constant revision.” (at p. 1361). Similarly, the Court in National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1505 held that a landfill EIR need not analyze the potential for future processing plants because “their exact locations to serve the project are unknown at this time” and it was not known who will be operating them. (at pp. 1518-19.) Undertaking the analysis of those impacts at that time

7.d
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 6 ends

BN 83242555v7
“would involve speculation and conjecture.” (at p. 1519.) These cases are no different than the unknown future of the Rockaway Quarry site.

Mr. Heule does not have any plans for development of his property. Property owners and developers, and Mr. Heule, himself, have tried for over 30 years to develop the Rockaway Quarry site to no avail. The last time that development was proposed in 2018, the voters rejected it just like they did in prior decades. Development is speculative at best. Our proposed strategy for clarifying further the Draft EIR’s Reduced Fill Alternative is to proceed with reclamation to provide time for the City and Mr. Heule to engage in a planning process to determine what future development could look like. This is not piecemealing. It is buying time for a collaborative planning process as the adopted General Plan envisions.

Next Steps
As Mr. Heule stated at the May 20, 2024 Study Session, he would be in support of an approach whereby the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Draft EIR Reduced Fill Alternative for the Reclamation Plan consisting of up to approximately 583,000 cubic yards as the maximum amount of imported fill to reclaim the Quarry Site subject to compliance with SMARA. The Reclamation Plan approval could then be conditioned to be implemented over the next three years as development plans progress.

We propose the following condition for the City’s consideration, if the City is interested in proceeding with the Reduced Fill Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR and shown in the attached “Preliminary Concept Plan Illustrating Reduced Fill of the Development Area Shown on the General Plan Figure 4-7” attached as Exhibit D to this letter (hereinafter, the “Preliminary Grading Plan”):

7.d
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 7 ends

BN 83242555v7
• The City could condition the selection of the Reduced Fill Alternative so that the property owner/applicant may fill the quarry as shown in the Preliminary Concept Plan up to a maximum of 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill. The applicant/property owner will agree to implement the Reclamation Plan in accordance with the Preliminary Concept Plan and limit the amount of imported fill material in a phased manner. After the necessary permits and authorizations are obtained to initiate reclamation, the applicant/ property owner would limit the amount of imported fill to 100,000 cubic yards in each of the first two years as the planning process is underway. Once the draft specific plan is released for public review, the applicant/property owner would be allowed to import fill for another 200,000 cubic yards until the Specific Plan is approved. If the Specific Plan is approved by 2027, then the applicant/property owner will limit the amount of imported fill to a total of 400,000 cubic yards provided that sufficient fill material can be generated on site to fill the quarry so that development of the future end uses contemplated in the General Plan may proceed after reclamation. In the event, the Specific Plan is not approved by 2027, then the applicant/property owner will be allowed to complete the reclamation of the quarry at the maximum of 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill. If the City selects the Reduced Fill Alternative as shown in the Preliminary Concept Plan and the Specific Plan proceeds, then the applicant/property owner will revise the adaptive management plan (submitted in October 2023 and Page 15 Table 1), to limit import fill in accordance with the phasing of the Reclamation Plan set forth in this condition.

Under this alternative, Mr. Heule and Mr. Gilmartin are willing to revise the October 2023 adaptive management plan to reflect the Preliminary Concept Plan so that the City can maintain the flexibility it needs to modify the total import fill quantities required for reclamation and future development, as approved by the specific plan process. As long as the planning process is underway and the City of Pacifica and the community approve the specific plan for development by the time that Baylands has imported 400,000 cubic yards of material to fill the portions of the Quarry Site proposed for development, then the maximum amount of fill under the Reclamation Plan will never be realized. If development is never approved as has been the case since 1983, then to comply with SMARA and other regulatory agencies, Mr. Heule may have no choice but to finish the Reclamation Plan at the maximum amount of fill contemplated by the Reduced Fill Alternative. If development consistent with the General Plan is approved and implemented in the future then the amount of fill necessary to reclaim the Quarry Site will be closer to the minimum.

7.d
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 8 ends

BN 83242555v7
We appreciate your consideration of our proposed strategy to address the Planning Commission’s comments and look forward to obtaining the Planning Commission’s direction regarding next steps regarding achieving reclamation that is adaptable to the future use of the Property.

Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
Attachments
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Kevin Woodhouse
Paul Heule
Billy Gilmartin

7.d
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) John Zentner Land
Planning & Restoration LLC
Pacifica Quarry Fill
The proposed reclamation project at the Quarry is driven by the requirements of the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which requires that all mines be reclaimed once they have ceased production.

Mining at the Quarry resulted in an internal bowl open to the east with adjoining bluffs to the west fronting the ocean. On the eastern (internal) side of those bluffs, mining left near-vertical rock faces, about 140 feet in height from the quarry floor to the shear zone on the main face and 60 feet in height from the sheer zone to the hilltop. The relevant SMARA criteria and their applicability to the Quarry site are as follows:
2712 (c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated. The Quarry includes heavily used trails on the bluff faces looking out over the ocean. These trails are directly above the Quarry face and a misstep from one of these trails would and has sent people over the edge of the face. The California Coastal Act protects existing access, thus these paths cannot be eliminated. Accordingly, the internal Quarry cliffs must be modified to eliminate the existing safety hazard to these trails. 3704 (d) Final reclaimed fill slopes….shall not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). To reclaim the near-vertical cliff faces with 2:1 slopes requires a substantial amount of fill; the crosssections provided as part of the Reclamation Plan provide the best illustration. 3704 (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.

The current proposed end use is described in the Reclamation Plan as:

The end use for the reclamation work is open land. As used here, this refers to an open space condition without unsafe or hazardous site conditions. This will require grading to create safe slopes, installation of local drainage facilities to ensure erosion control, and re-vegetating the site to achieve a character that is relatively natural in appearance.

Page two
Exhibit A

7.d
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) To match the existing topography and, therefore, restore the hillock that once occurred on the Quarry site requires creating a rounded, naturalistic landform. This work will require 944,000 CY of fill, as illustrated in the applicant’s proposed Reclamation Plan.

The General Plan designates the project site as a Special Area. The existing zoning designation for the site is Visitor Serving Commercial, which includes a variety of commercial and other uses. Most of these uses would require a relatively flat pad or terraced pads. Building such a pad would reduce the amount of fill required to about 653,000 CY (the reduced fill option). Reclaiming the site for General Plan consistent uses essentially trades off restoration of a natural hillslope for creation of a potential development site. Both end uses would be consistent with SMARA (see 3704, cited above).

With regards to imported fill versus generation of fill from cut on-site, approximately 70,000 CY can be generated from on-site materials. Accordingly, the 944,000 CY of fill noted above for the proposed Reclamation Plan would include 874,000 CY of imported fill. For the reduced fill option, the use of on-site fill would reduce the needed import to 583,000 CY.

Reduced amounts of fill are not practicable at this time. Increasing the amount of on-site fill generated would necessarily require grading down and/or blasting the coastal bluffs to generate fill. Pursuing this option is highly speculative as grading the coastal bluffs would be inconsistent with provisions of the California Coastal Act and the City’s Hillside Protection District (HPD).

Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states, ….”The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected ….. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to …..minimize the alteration of natural land forms”
Similarly, grading the coastal bluffs further would create significant issues with the City’s HPD.

7.d
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1108 Garden Street Suite 202-204
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 319-4948
www.walshengineering.net

Page 1 of 1 ends

2016008 _20240621 responses to study session comment summary\__Memo Study Session Responses_20240621.docx

MEMORANDUM
Date: 6/21/2024
Subject: Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan
Technical Responses to Items Noted in the May 20th, 2024 City Study Session Questions were raised at the May 20th, 2024 Study Session for the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation. This letter is intended to be a response to the technical portion of questions raised in relation to the civil engineering.

Minimum Amount of Fill
SMARA Section 3704(e) states all fill slopes shall conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use. If the approved end use is open space without flat development pads, the minimum amount of fill necessary to reclaim the Quarry is 944,000 cubic yards in order to comply with SMARA Section 3704(e). If the approved end use is to include flat development pads, the minimum amount of fill necessary to reclaim the Quarry is 653,000 cubic yards. Both of these amounts of fill result in restoring the Quarry face with fill up to the elevation of the 135 foot contour. Hiking trails exist above the 135 foot contour. Immediately below the 135 foot contour, there are near vertical mining cuts, visible eroded slopes, and a visible lack of vegetated cover which has resulted in significant erosion and instability. We previously submitted a plan exhibit dated 4/24/2024 overlaying the Reclamation Grading Plan on top of an aerial image which depicted the 135 foot contour elevation in relation to proposed grading and the existing issues described above. We also previously submitted a Technical Memorandum dated 11/14/2023, further revised and resubmitted with date 4/9/2024, which outlined specific SMARA Requirements in addition to Section 3704(e) noted above, which guided the proposed reclamation in regard to areas disturbed by mining, adaptability, public health & safety, water quality, watershed control, slope steepness, and accessibility.

Development Pad with Reduced Fill Option
The reduced amount of fill associated with the flat development pads described above does not rely on any specific type of development in terms of zoning. Regardless of the type of development, the reduced quantity fills the Quarry floor to a pad elevation of 85 feet and extends a 2:1 fill slope up 50 feet higher than the pad to the 135 foot elevation contour to restore the Quarry face. This conforms with SMARA while resulting in an estimated 5 acres of developable area. The current General Plan Figure 4-7 indicates approximately 7.8 acres of pad area for development. Therefore, the reduced fill option would result in about 64% of the development area when compared to the pad outlined in the General Plan Figure 4-7.

Hillside Preservation District (HPD)
The City’s provisions for the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) guide the maximum amount of coverage area allowed to be disturbed with reclamation or development. Removing more of the Hill Top will result in an increase of the grading limits for disturbed area, thus the allowable coverage area for HPD Requirements will be further exceeded.

Sincerely,
Matt Walsh, PE, QSD/P
Walsh Engineering
References: As noted above; Copy To: (Walsh Engineering File) Exhibit B

7.d
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Exhibit C
Soils Management Plan Update

7.d
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.d
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.d
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
for the
The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC

AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN
at the Pacifica Quarry
Pacifica, California
Prepared by:

Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Created: November 2019
Updated: September 2021
Updated: October 2023

7.d
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 1 of 10 September 2021
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose & Objectives
This Soil Management Plan was prepared to define the operations associated with completing the Approved Amended Reclamation Plan (the Facility) at the Pacifica Quarry site, identify operational requirements and limitations, and establish a reporting mechanism between the Operator (Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC aka “BSP”), land owner (The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC aka “PAP”) and those governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the site and its operations.

The operation of the reclamation site (Facility) is an evolving process that must adapt to market conditions, and regulatory requirements. Likewise, this plan will serve as an evolving document taking into consideration those changes and will be updated, as needed.

The objectives of this Soil Management Plan are as follows:
• Identify the physical limits of operations at the Pacifica Quarry site under contractual control of the Operator. Under the direction of the landowner, the Operator is directly responsible for the daily operations and implementation of certain regulatory requirements as contractually obligated. • Provide a description of the operations including site improvements, acceptable import materials, placement and compaction, final grading and vegetation per the Approved Amended Reclamation Plan.
• Establish standardized reports and distribution procedures.

1.2 Site Location & Map
The Pacifica Quarry site consists of APN # 180-150-110 and APN # 180-150-120 (the “West Parcel” shown as Exhibit A) together with APN # 180-150-150 (the “East Parcel” shown in Exhibit B), collectively described as the “Property”. It is bounded by Rockaway Beach to the south, Mori Point Ridge to the north, Highway 1 to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west in the City of Pacifica within San Mateo County, California. The Project Area consists of the West Parcel (Exhibit A) and existing access roads crossing the east parcel as shown in Section 1.7.

1.3 Site History & Context
The Pacifica Quarry, an open pit mine from which limestone, greenstone, shale and chert was extracted, is located on the Property. Mining operations at the Pacific Quarry ceased in 1987, and the Property requires reclamation. The Project Team has prepared and submitted to the City of Pacifica (“City”), revisions to an application for a Quarry Use Permit and an amendment to Reclamation Plan for the Property

7.d
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 2 of 10 September 2021
(collectively, the “Amended Reclamation Plan”) pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”) and the City’s Mining and Reclamation Ordinance. The Amended Reclamation Plan will be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

As part of the Amended Reclamation Plan, a grading plan (the “Grading Plan”) was prepared by Walsh Engineering dated 03/16/2020. As shown on the Grading Plan, approximately 970,000cubic yards of soil imports are required to reclaim the West Parcel.

As the Contractor, BSP will reclaim the Property by (i) receiving, managing, and placing imported soil to the Property that satisfies certain environmental standards that will be set forth in this Soil Import Management Plan (the “Soil Management Plan”), (ii) depositing and compacting the Imported Soil, (iii) grading the Property, (iv) constructing a new access road on the Property, and (v) re-vegetating the Property. There is no proposal to develop the Property following the completion of the reclamation work at this time.

1.4 Owner’s Name and Address:

The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC
231 W. Fulton St.,
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Attn: Paul C. Heule
Email: [email protected]

1.5 Contracted Operator’s Name and Address:

Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
600 Castro Street, San
Leandro CA 94577
Attn: Bill Gilmartin
Email: [email protected]

1.6 Current Conditions
The Property is a former mine dominated by often-steep slopes, non- native plant species and informal accessways. For ease of discussion, the site includes the following elements from roughly north to south: 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 parcel); the Quarry Face (the scarp left by mining in the parcel center), 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 Hilltop is the high ground of the parcel and is located above the Quarry Face and East Flank and south of the adjacent Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s

7.d
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 3 of 10 September 2021
(GGNRA's) Mori Point. The Hilltop is relatively flat and smooth and extends down over the south slope to a shear zone just above the limestone of the Quarry Face. The hilltop also has two mounds protruding approximately 20 feet above the surface. In contrast with its adjacent landscapes, the surface of the Hilltop has soil and moderate vegetation cover.

The East Flank is steeply sloped and is comprised predominately of exposed fill and gains approximately 220 feet in elevation. At the bottom of the East Flank an old access road cuts across and up the slope. The road cuts north across the East Flank and then turns south and continues across the Face. The grade of the slope varies throughout the section with several small, relatively flat, plateaus. The section is moderately vegetated; the lower slope is dominated by pampas grass while the upper, more stable slope contains a variety of native coastal shrubs.

The Quarry Face is predominately an exposed limestone face with approximately 170 feet in elevation gain. The lower two thirds of the Face are steep, comprised of exposed limestone, and are sparsely vegetated. Approximately 120 feet above the old quarry floor, two thirds of the way up the Face, an old access road cuts horizontally across the Face. Above the road, the Face gives way to the Hilltop at the geologic shear zone that separates the limestone from greenstone. The access road and upper slope have moderate vegetation cover.

The Quarry Pit is predominately flat and vegetated with non-native species. Steep slopes, including the Face, surround the Pit to the north, west, and south. To the east, the Quarry Pit abuts the City -owned parcel and Calera Creek. An approximately 7,800 square foot, 10-foot-deep depression is located near the eastern edge. North of the depression is an elevated, predominately exposed rock surface.

The Southern Bluff abuts the Pacific Ocean to the south, is steeply sloped, and is comprised on the surface of predominantly exposed and unstable rock slopes. The slopes are sparsely vegetated with pampas grass. The ridge has moderate vegetation cover comprised of predominately non-native species.

1.7 Site Access
Inbound trucks will come from the north and access 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.

7.d
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 4 of 10 September 2021

1.8 Site Drainage
Site drainage is characterized by sheet flow across the unimproved surface of the Property and will be controlled by vegetated swales/channels and other approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention measures. In general, storm water flows to Calera Creek that divides the Property. This central drainage channel also receives storm water discharge from the wastewater treatment plant and other off-site developed areas upstream of the Property. Calera Creek discharges to the Pacific Ocean via Rockaway Beach.

7.d
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 5 of 10 September 2021
2 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS

2.1 Overview of Operations
The Facility’s operations geographically consist of approximately 28.2acres of the Quarry Site located west of the existing creek. Access to the site will be as stated in Section 1.7.

The Facility accepts “Soil” that does not exceed the environmental screening limits as defined by the State of California Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Region.

Days and hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If requested by clientele, the Facility may be opened on the weekend during specific hours to accommodate their project’s needs.

The Facility requires that materials go through an Environmental Screening Process (ESP) prior to being accepted as suitable import materials. The Environmental Screening Limits (ESL’s) for the chemicals being evaluated align with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) residential ESL’s and generally accepted background levels previously accepted by the RWQCB and the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

Additionally, the materials must meet the requirements contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Dated December 2018 by Geocon, which includes: a Plasticity Index not greater than 20, and an Expansion Index less than 90 to ensure the materials comply with the project’s structural fill and compaction requirements.

In October of 2023, this plan has been updated to include testing for fungi. All soil proposed for import to the site, must be tested for Sudden Oak Death and Valley Fever Fungus. Any proposed import soil showing presence of Sudden Oak Death or Valley Fever Fungus will be rejected, and therefore not allowed for import to the site.

Once approved by the Materials Regulation Specialist (MRS), a list of approved projects will be given a designated, unique identification number by the Operator and given to BSP’s Gate Operator and PAP’s designated representative. Quantity and timing of material deliveries are dependent on the individual project and vary daily.

When deliveries arrive at the Facility, the Gate Operator will check them against the “approved list” to confirm compliance with the prior approvals. If the Gate Operator determines that the import materials are not associated with the “approved list” or appears to have been tampered with, the Gate Operator will reject the load.

2.2 Related On-Site Operations
Proposed activities include the following:

1. Administrative office and related equipment in a temporary modular unit;

7.d
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 6 of 10 September 2021

2. Heavy Equipment storage and maintenance; (2) screening plants, (2) loaders, (1) excavator, (1) water truck, (1) tractor, and (2) pick-up trucks, as needed;

7.d
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 7 of 10 September 2021

3. Miscellaneous tools and equipment including lab equipment, tool box containers, power generator;

4. Vehicle parking – ranging between 3 to 6 vehicles;

5. Implementation of the Site’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP);

6. Site grading and maintenance of SWPPP measures and access road,

7. Temporary stockpiling of soil prior to placement and compaction;

8. Temporary storage and off-haul of site generated debris which includes debris boxes.

9. Temporary storage of BSP’s, and its representatives, construction equipment, miscellaneous tools in containers and various framing and structural support materials.

10. Revegetate the Property in accordance with the Approved Amended Reclamation Plan

2.3 Source for Imported Materials.

The sources of imported soil would be from public works projects and soil excavation associated with private development projects located in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. The source materials to be received on the project site would be limited to these three counties in order to 1) conduct reclamation activities within the anticipated schedule, and 2) limit total greenhouse gas emissions based on accessibility to regional transportation facilities between the source locations and the project site consistent with the Reclamation Project Application.

7.d
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 8 of 10 September 2021
3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The following section identifies those entities that have regulatory jurisdiction over the operations of the Facility as they apply to the Project Site. Sections 3.1 through 3.5 are specific to the primary operations pertaining to importing, processing and exporting soil.

3.1 City of Pacifica
The City of Pacifica has ultimate permitting authority of the site. In accordance with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 2 entitled "Quarries," consisting of sections 9-

2.01 through 9-2.17 codified from Ordinance No. 365, as amended by Ord. 151-C.S. eff. August 13, 1975, Ord. 349-C.S., eff. November 10, 1982, and Ord. 414-C.S., eff.

August 8, 1984), the Project’s Operating Permit will comply with the City approved Amended Reclamation Plan and requirements outlined in the Projects certified EIR.

3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
The site is required to comply with the Order issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region and State of California’s General Storm Water Permit associated with Industrial Activities.

3.2.1 General Storm Water Permit associated with Industrial Activities Requirements Applicable to the Operator
The site is required to comply with the California’s General Storm Water Permit associated with Industrial Activities which generally requires facility operators to:

1. Eliminate unauthorized non-storm water discharges;

2. Develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP); and

3. Perform monitoring of storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges.

This General Permit requires development and implementation of an SWPPP emphasizing the use of BMPs. This approach provides the flexibility necessary to establish appropriate BMPs for different types of industrial activities and pollutant sources. As this General Permit covers vastly different types of facilities, the State Water Board recognizes that there is no single best way of developing or organizing an SWPPP.

A Notice of Intent in conformance with the California National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with industrial activities was filed on on behalf of the current reclamation activities. A

7.d
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 9 of 10 September 2021
storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that incorporated best management practices (BMPs) was submitted to the California State Water Resources Board (State Board).

The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality issued a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number prior to site operations.

3.3 United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACOE)
PAP received a Nationwide Permit from the Department of the Army authorizing the filling of Pacifica Quarry site. Mitigation shall be completed in accordance with the Permit.

3.4 California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On July 26, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a regulation to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from inuse (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations.

As required by the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulation, CARB requires that off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles are registered using CARB’s Diesel Off-Road On-Line Reporting System (DOORS). This program provides a public database which includes CARB certification by an Executive Order that the equipment is in compliance with all regulatory standards.

Operator’s current equipment is registered with the DOORS program and all proposed equipment will be registered to ensure compliance.
4 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

4.1 Baseline Conditions
The majority of best management practices implemented on site include, but not limited to: silt fences, check dams, vegetated non-operational/undisturbed areas and drainage swales. The site is watered twice a day for dust control. For vehicles exiting the site, a wheel wash and rumble strips are installed adjacent to the portable trailer.

SWPPP BMP’s are proactively updated and corrected, as needed. Working with PAP, the Operator will ensure proper monitoring and reporting per the existing SWPPP.

Erosion control measures (e.g., hydro-seeding) are applied to undisturbed operational areas while active areas are maintained daily.

4.2 Proposed SWPPP

7.d
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 10 of 10 September 2021
Based on the proposed operations described within this Plan, the SWPPP will be amended as necessary to identify an effective combination of erosion and sediment control for all disturbed areas during the rainy season, as required by permit. Note that active (or disturbed) areas are operational year-round. The amount of active operations can be significantly less during the winter season.

Erosion and sediment controls will be designed and implemented using guidance in the latest editions of the California Storm Water Quality Association’s (CASQA) Industrial and Construction Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks or the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual. Disturbed areas include roadways, slopes, and stockpiles.

Erosion and sediment controls will be inspected on a weekly basis, before expected rain events and immediately after rain events. They will be maintained per CASQA guidelines and vendor instructions. Repairs will be made immediately or as soon as weather permits. A log of inspections and repairs will be kept in addition to a schedule for annual maintenance for items between April and October.

7.d
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Soil Management Plan Page 11 of 10 September 2021
5 Operations Reporting

5.1 Bi- Monthly Reports
BSP will submit a bi-monthly report the City of Pacifica. The report will contain information from the Operator and summarize the following information:
a. Field Activities
b. Storm Water
i. BMP’s Status and Location Map
c. Imported Materials
i. Estimated Monthly Quantities
ii. Load Counts by truck type/size.
d. Approved list of Projects & Supporting Documentation

7.d
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 1 of 12 The following guidelines are provided as a prescriptive step process to ensure the contractual and regulatory requirements for Baylands Soil Pacifica are met and the appropriate quality control documentation is provided in a timely manner. Please contact [email protected] for questions.

Soil Review & Acceptance Guidelines

1. Complete Source Information Form (SIF)
a. See Exhibit A
b. Do not leave any area blank.
c. Submit via email to [email protected]

2. Determine Number of Samples for Environmental Analysis by type of project:
a. Borrow Area (e.g., one common piece of property with the same use; commonly referred to as a Mass Excavation)
b. Stockpile (e.g., pipelines, multiple locations, multiple uses on one site) Environmental Sampling Requirements
Borrow Area (aka Mass Excavation)
2 acres or less 4 discreet samples
2 to 4 acres Minimum 1 sample per ½ acre
4 to 10 acres Minimum 8 samples
Greater than 10 acres
Minimum of 8 locations with 4 subsamples per
location
Stockpile(1)
Up to 1,000 cubic yards (CY) 1 sample per 250 CY
1,000 CY to 5,000 CY 4 samples for first 1,000CY’s plus 1 sample for each additional 500 CY
Greater than 5,000 CY 12 samples for first 5,000CY’s plus 1 sample for each additional 500 CY

1. Composite samples are acceptable provided they don’t exceed 4:1 ratio.

For example: 2-point (2:1) composite may represent up to 500 CY for stockpile material. 4-point (4:1) composite may represent up to 1,000 CY for stockpile material.

7.d
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 2 of 12

3. Determine Number of Samples for Geotechnical Analysis:
a. Plasticity Index:
i. Every import source/project seeking approval to import material into BSP Pacifica Site must submit at least one (1) test for Plasticity Index. ii. Plasticity Index Freqeuncy:

1. For projects that are 1,000 Cubic Yards or more – 1 EA Plasticity Index is required for every 2,500 Cubic Yards of Material to be imported. b. Expansion Index:
i. Import sources/projects seeking approval to import material into BSP Pacifica Site must submit one (1) test for Expansion Index test for every 5,000 Cubic Yards of Import which exceed the first 5,000 Cubic Yards of import. ii. Expansion Index Frequency:

1. For projects that are 5,000 Cubic Yards or less – No Expansion Index test is required.

2. For projects 5,000 cubic yards or more:
a. 1 test for every 5,000 Cubic Yards after the first 5,000 Cubic Yards of Import.

4. Testing:
a. Normally provided by contractor but can be performed by BSP staff at an additional cost.

Contact BSP for pricing.
b. ONLY BSP Staff are allowed to conduct sampling and testing for materials located on BSP facilities. This includes materials imported beyond the estimated volume as shown on the Source Information Form.
c. Prior Environmental and Geotechnical Reports may be used for preliminary screening; however, BSP requires laboratory testing performed within the past 6 months for purposes of review and approval.
d. Composited soil samples shall be analyzed for the following constituents:
• VOCs, including MTBE and TPH – GRO (EPA Method 8260B); • SVOCs (EPA Method 8270C); 8270C SIM may be used to augment 8270C • Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081);
• PCBs (EPA Method 8082);
• TPH – D and MO (EPA Method 8015);
• Chromium +6 (EPA Method 7199); and
• 17 CAM metals (EPA Method 6000/7000 series):
- antimony (EPA Method 6010B);
- arsenic (EPA Method 200.8);
- barium (EPA Method 6010B);
- beryllium (EPA Method 6010B);
- cadmium (EPA Method 6010B);
- chromium (EPA Method 6010B);
- cobalt (EPA Method 6010B);
- copper (EPA Method 6010B);
- lead (EPA Method 6010B);

7.d
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 3 of 12 - mercury (EPA Method 7470A);
- Molybdenum (EPA Method 200.8)
- nickel (EPA Method 6010B);
- selenium (EPA Method 6010B);
- silver (EPA Method 6010B);
- thallium (EPA Method 6010B);
- vanadium (EPA Method 6010B); and
- zinc (EPA Method 6010B).
• ph (EPA Method 9045C)
• Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits – ASTM D 4318)
• Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829)
• Sudden Oak Death Fungi Testing
• Valley Fever fungus Testing
e. Additional requirements
i. Maximum Detection Limits (MDL’s) shall be included in lab reports for tests 8081, 8082 and 8270. MDL’s shall be at or below the Environmental Screening Limits (ESL’s) shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
ii. If a CAM-17 TTLC test result is ten (10) times greater than its Table 2 value, BSP requires an STLC test to be submitted to determine soluble concentration. Results must be less than the STLC ESL’s shown in Table 2 to be accepted. iii. pH results that are less than 5 or greater than 10 may result in higher dump fees. iv. Chain of Custody form to state if sample is a composite and the ratio (e.g., 1:2 or 4:1).

BSP does not accept composites greater than 4:1.

5. Review Process
a. Submit SIF and Test Results from an ELAP certified laboratory for BSP review via email to:
[email protected]
b. Material Review Notes:
i. Summary tables are useful to facilitate review, but actual lab reports are required to confirm values.
ii. If “Background” value in Table 1 is shown, the higher value between Background value and ESL shall be used to determine acceptance.
c. If the materials are deemed acceptable, BSP will issue a unique project ID number, Purchase Order and Soil Acceptance Letter stating conditions of approval including maximum import volume limit.
d. BSP will reply via email if the materials are unacceptable, or if corrective action is required to properly determine material acceptance.

ALTERNATIVE: At the sole discretion of BSP, materials may be imported into BSP’s Material Containment Area (MCA) prior to approval provided that the Source Generator submits a letter acknowledging: (1) they are the Generator and (2) responsible for all associated cost should the materials received by the Generator are found to be unacceptable. The Letter shall be accompanied with preliminary test information sufficient for BSP to determine if materials can be imported into the MCA. All materials imported into the MCA are subject to confirmation testing by BSP at additional costs to the Generator, or as mutually agreed to by BSP and the Generator.

7.d
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 4 of 12 Table 1
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)
For
Imported Materials
Table 1 Notes:
" -- " not applicable or not available; " mg/kg " milligrams per kilogram If background value is available, the higher value between background and ESL shall be used. * ESL not available; USEPA Risk-Based Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) for the protection of groundwater were used (4).

References:
(1) Background Metals Concentrations in Soil in Northern Santa Clara County (Scott, 1995) (2) Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in the Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL June 2002, Revised April 2009)
(3) All proposed concentrations are from California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (CRWQCB). Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Interim Final. rev June 2016. Minimum ESL between GW protection and Direct contact for soils < 3 meters below ground surface unless highlighted in red.
(4) USEPA, 2011. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. (5) 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the Mean Concentration for Benzo(a)pyrene equivalents from Use of the Northern and Southern California Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Studies in the Manufactured Gas Plant Site Cleanup Process Draft for Public Comment – Cal-EPA May 8, 2009
(6) SF RWQCB Letter dated 9/14/17 regarding Concurrence with Proposed Revisions to the Baylands Soil Processing Acceptance Criteria, Brisbane Landfill, San Mateo County (7) SF RWQCB correspondence dated 10/23/17 regarding Concurrence with Proposed Revisions to the Baylands Soil Processing Acceptance Criteria, Brisbane Landfill, San Mateo County

7.d
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 5 of 12 Table 1
Chemical
Background
(mg/kg) (1)

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
Inorganics
Antimony 22 31
Arsenic (1) 11 11
Barium (2) 410 3000
Beryllium 3.2 42
Cadmium 14 39
Chromium 170 120,000
Chromium VI - 0.3
Cobalt (2) 25 25
Copper 67 3,100
Lead (2) 54 80
Mercury 1.3 13
Molybdenum (2) 4.8 390
Nickel 145 150
Selenium (2) 4.9 390
Silver 4.8 390
Thallium 3.8 3.8
Vanadium (2) 90 390
Zinc 120 23,000

7.d
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 6 of 12 PAH’s
Chemical Background
(mg/kg)

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
Acenaphthene - 1.6
Acenaphthylene - 13
Anthracene - 2.8
Benzo[a]anthracene - 0.16
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.4 (5) 0.4
Benzo[b]fluoranthene - 0.16
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene - 2.5
Benzo[k]fluoranthene - 1.6
Chrysene - 3.8
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene - 0.016
Fluoranthene - 60
Fluorene - 8.9
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene - 0.16
Methylnaphthalene, 2 - 0.25
Naphthalene - 0.03
Phenanthrene - 11
Pyrene - 85

7.d
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 7 of 12 Chemical
Background
(mg/kg)

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD - 2.7
4,4'-DDE - 1.9
4,4'-DDT - 1.9
Aldrin 0.036
Aroclor 1248 - 0.23
Aroclor 1254 - 0.24
Aroclor 1260 - 0.24
Chlordane - 0.48
Dieldrin 0.002(6) 0.002
Endosulfan I 0.0046
Endosulfan II 0.0046
Endosulfan sulfate 0.0046
Endrin 0.002(6) 0.002
Endrin aldehyde 0.002(6) 0.002
Endrin ketone 0.002(6) 0.002
Heptachlor 0.002(6) 0.002
Heptachlor epoxide 0.002(6) 0.002
Lindane - 0.0098
Methoxychlor - 19

7.d
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 8 of 12 SVOCs
Chemical
Background
(mg/kg)

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol - 0.21
2,4-Dichlorophenol - 0.3
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13(7) 0.0018
Benzoic Acid 34*
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate - 39
Butyl-benzyl-phthalate 0.51*
Diethyl phthalate - 0.035
Dimethyl Phthalate - 0.035
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.68
Hexachloroethane - 1.1
Phenol - 0.076
TPH
Chemical

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
TPH Gasoline (GRO) C6 - C10 100
TPH Diesel (DRO) C11- C28 230
TPH Motor oil C23 – C36 5,100

7.d
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 9 of 12 Chemical Background
(mg/kg)

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
VOCs
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane - 0.01
1,1,1-Trichloroethane - 7.8
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane - 0.018
1,1,2-Trichloroethane - 0.07
1,1-Dichloroethane - 0.2
1,1-Dichloroethylene - 0.55
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene - 1.5
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.081
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane - 0.0045
1,2-Dibromoethane 0.004(6) 0.00033
1,2-Dichlorobenzene - 1.6
1,2-Dichloroethane - 0.0045
1,2-Dichloropropane - 0.12
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.087*
1,3-Dichloropropene - 0.059
1,4-Dichlorobenzene - 0.59
2,2-Dichloropropane 0.25*
2-Chlorotoluene 0.23
4-Isopropyltoluene (p-cymene) 1.1*
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) - 2.8
Acetone - 0.5

7.d
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 10 of 12 Benzene - 0.044
Bromodichloromethane - 0.52
Bromoform - 1.7
Bromomethane - 0.3
Butylbenzene, n- 5.9*
Carbon disulfide 0.24
Carbon tetrachloride - 0.048
Chlorobenzene - 1.5
Chloroethane - 1.1
Chloroform - 0.68
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) - 2.9
Dibromochloromethane - 3.8
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2 - 0.19
Chemical
Background
(mg/kg)

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3)
VOCs
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2 - 1
Ethylbenzene - 1.4
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone) - 5.1
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) - 0.023
Methylene chloride - 0.077
Naphthalene - 0.033
Propylbenzene, n- 1.2

7.d
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 11 of 12 Styrene - 1.5
Tetrachloroethylene - 0.42
Toluene - 2.9
Trichloroethylene - 0.46
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.838
Vinyl chloride - 0.008
Xylene (total) - 2.3
Table 2
STLC Limits for Imported Materials
Chemical
STLC
(mg/L)
Antimony 15
Arsenic 5
Barium 100
Beryllium 0.8
Cadmium 1.0
Chromium 5
Cobalt 80
Copper 25
Lead 5
Mercury 0.2
Molybdenum 350

7.d
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 12 of 12 Nickel 20
Selenium 1
Silver 5
Thallium 7
Vanadium 24
Zinc 250

7.d
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

EXHIBIT A
Source Information Form Page 1 of 2

SOURCE INFORMATION FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: COMPLETE ALL AREAS OF FORM
WHEN COMPLETED, EMAIL TO: [email protected]
GENERATOR (Property/Soil Owner) MAIN CONTACT (Soil/Project Representative) Company: Company:

Address:

Name:

Title:

Address:

Name:

Title:

Phone #: Mobile #:

Email:

Transporter Name (if different than Generator or Owner / Representative):

Address: Phone #: Mobile #:

SITE INFORMATION
Project / Site Address:

Excavation Type: Classification: Stockpile Borrow Area/Mass Excavation Acreage:

General Property Classification: Residential Commercial Industrial Open Space (undeveloped) Current Land Use / Site Operations:

Historical Site Information (prior use):

TESTING INFORMATION (include sample map for locations; if composite, state ratio per Chain of Custody form) Sample ID# Type of Sample: Sample ID# Type of Sample:

Sample ID# Type of Sample: Sample ID# Type of Sample:

Lab results shall be from ELAP accredited laboratory and accompanied with Chain of Custody letter

SOIL & HAUL INFORMATION
Physical Description, e.g. wet, dry, sand, clay, debris contaminated, terrain, etc.:

Total Amount of Soil to be Removed (estimated cubic yards): Estimated # of truckloads:

Project Time Frame (for soil removal from site): Days Weeks Months Project Start/End dates (approx dates for soil removal): Start End

7.d
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

EXHIBIT A
Source Information Form Page 2 of 2
Soil Source Information Form

CERTIFICATION
As an authorized representative and transporter for the generator, I certify individually and as an authorized representative of the Generator that I understand that Baylands Soil Pacifica (BSP) shall only receive materials that comply with its soil management plan, submittal guidelines and terms and conditions of acceptance and purchase order, if provided.

I certify, under penalty of law, that the soil I am disposing of (1) does not contain and is not contaminated with any hazardous materials/substances, as defined under any provision of federal, California or local law, (2) meets established acceptance criteria for this site per its Soil Management Plan, (3) was taken from the address and site location(s), as indicated above and has not been combined with any substance from any other site or location, (4) was tested by a State- accredited environmental testing laboratory and that such sampling was not conducted at an unauthorized location and (5) that all information submitted in this Soil Certification form is true and correct. Furthermore, I am fully aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and/or imprisonment under federal, state and local law.

I certify that I understand that BSP and the landowner are relying on the information stated in this Form and other submitted documentation to make a determination of acceptance or rejection of Clean Soil, that the I and the Generator of the soil, severally and jointly, agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless BSP and landowner with respect to the presence of contaminants in the materials in excess of unrestricted Environmental Screening Levels and/or any misrepresentation in the Certification and/or related documents.

I and the Generator accept complete liability for any and all costs associated with the materials should it be found to contain contaminants or be rejected by BSP staff. I understand that BSP reserves all rights to reject any materials at its sole discretion. (Individually and as authorized representative for Generator) (Print Name) (Date)

7.d
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.d
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.d
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) //
// //
//
// //
//
// //
// //
//
//
//
// //
//
// // //
// //
228
230
250
260
240
220
200
210
180
170160
190
210
140
150 200
230
240
250
120
110
100 220
130
230
210
220
190
200
190
30 40
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// //
// //
// //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// //
//
// // // //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// //
//
//

SAN MARLO WAY

REINA DEL MAR

DONDEE WAY OLD COUNTY
STATE ROUTE 1 (CABRILLO HWY)

EAST PARCEL

39.1 ACRES
APN 180-150-150

CALERA CREEK

ROCKAWAY
BEACH

PACIFIC
OCEAN

MAIN FACE

EAST FLANK
FLATS

CITY OF PACIFICA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

SOUTHERN BLUFFS

HILLTOP
50 60
70 80
80 90
70 40
45 //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

WEST PARCEL

47.1 ACRES
APN 180-150-110 & 120

QUARRY PIT
//

AREA NAME CUT FILL NET

MAIN FACE &
MAINTENANCE RD. 69,000 CY 20,000 CY -49,000 CY (CUT)
QUARRY PIT 1,000 CY 633,000 CY +632,000 CY (FILL)
TOTAL 70,000 CY 653,000 CY +583,000 CY (FILL)
10 5
Know what'sbelow.Call811before you dig.
0 100' 200'
EXH D

7.d
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment C Reduced Fill Alternative Quarry Reclamation Plan (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.e
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment D Appeal by Dan Stegink [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
August 27, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Sarah Coffey
City Clerk
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria A venue
Pacifica, CA 94044
•

RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 20 24
F.etl. fie q ( 3D:M
tiTY CLERK
425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
415.227.3508 Direct
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Recommendations and Decisions Concerning Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan - Project File No. 2016-001 (APNs 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
Dear Ms. Coffey,
Please find enclosed a supplemental attachment consisting of copies of the letters referenced in my August 26, 2024 appeal regarding the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan to assist you and the City Council in your review of the Appeal.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance.

Attachments
AG:nj
cc: Kevin Woodhouse
Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Kavitha Kumar
Paul Heule
Billy Gilmartin
BN 84225206vl
Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra .
buchalter.com
Los Angeles
Denver
Napa Valley
Nashville
Orange County
Portland
Sacramento
Salt Lake Crty
San Diego
San f'.rancisco
Scottsda le
Seattle

7.f
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 8/27/24, 11 :01 AM FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s) - -t
~ ~
:d o~~ 0 U) ~UJj!::O - )> ~C-:::0 ::,;: - z 'It: -9 '"tJ - n en s:::~Q~ - "Tl - .j)> ...... )> :::0 ~ l>l:>Z
- 0 --t ~ ,G)_
....... == qo n en -< ~ ;:,;:;-tco
....... ...... _ (") ~gJgJ~
00 :::: "Tl )> ::c ::c men
~¥~- ~~ .....,_ U)
"-> n z )> ui8 -t
n :::0
en ........ - - )> --t r- CC') m ... ~""21==~= )> r- 0 Ull:> m a, n s: n =H <D _-t
D ... ·~~- )> ~ U) <O 0 C ..., 0 (0 )>-m u, ::::::j .!:!) a, tJ.. %4 iM - ~ :::0 --t -< m 00
- -<_ ..., <D
r- ....... ~= 0 )>on <D 'P ~ 0 0 a, ff!~ 0 ~
> ....... ~ ~- )> "Tl :::::j u,
71 < '"tJ -< ~- - - - ~ .Ji m )> n
~ & Zn,
~
N c:::;; m ~- 0
m
7J m - :::o ,,.. ""CJ ~~ :=: ~:Bil ~- OJ (")l:>Ul :;tJ F ej(")I ;;Ill ;;;;;; r .. ~ =a 0 m - !!!!!!!! U) :;tJ C =-a=:= m o~~ - == ol ~ w. z ~ .. -t =i I CJ .....l,,oro N ~= m 00 (.J'I"' -< 00 ~ Ci"' 0 :::0 ~0-.J (") 0 > (')~ ~ i orl:> )> 2UJ§ en
c:: m <
G)
C ~ ~ ~ ~ r--> ' :;tJ ~
,,
t:J ~
CD
~ ...... ...lo, C>
Cl)~ z 0 C)
"T10 G) w o:t :I: 0
--4 > Q
J243D24071311uv 583J6/A12D/3AE3
After printing this label:

1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.

2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line.

3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.

Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.

Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $1 00 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-delivery,misdelivery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Limitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental.consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented loss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
https://www.fedex.com/shipping/shipAction.handle?method=doContinue 1/1

7.f
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
May 9, 2024
Christian Murdock
Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation Plan
Dear Christian:
425 Market Street
Suite2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227 .0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
415.227.3508 Direct
[email protected]
As you know, Buchalter, APC, represents Paul Heule and The Preserve@ Pacifica, LLC ("The Preserve") and Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC ("Baylands") regarding land use matters concerning the Rockaway Quarry in the City of Pacifica ("Pacifica"). Bay lands is processing a reclamation plan ("Reclamation Plan") at The Preserve's request in order to reclaim the Rockaway Quarry. The Preserve and Baylands appreciate the public and Planning Commission's thoughtful deliberations concerning the proposed Reclamation Plan. We know it is not easy to discuss a project that many of the residents commenting on the project oppose.

The purpose of this letter is to outline a path forward for the Planning Commission's consideration to address the Planning Commission and community's concerns about the proposed Reclamation Plan in a way that reaches the finish line. The strategy my client is proposing for the Planning Commission's consideration is designed to move the 2023 Reclamation Plan forward in a manner that can be implemented so it is readily adaptable to end uses as contemplated by the Pacifica General Plan; this has been a basic project objective for decades. First, before I explain the path forward, I think it is important to explain how we got to this point and why the 2023 Reclamation Plan is proposed in the way that it is.

Why Reclamation Must Occur
The State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ("SMARA") governs the Reclamation Plan. As we have explained at the prior Planning Commission meetings and in all of our application submittals, surface mining operations in the state are required to prepare and file a BN 82485284v2
buchalter.com
Los Angeles
Denver
Nap;.~ Valley
Nashville
Orange County
Portland
Sacrame nto
Salt Lake City
San Diego
San J'.'.ranc isco
Scottsdale
Seattle

7.f
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

reclamation plan for closed mines. (Pub. Res. Code, § 2770.) That is State law. This is to ensure that all mines are "reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses" and that any "hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated." (Pub. Res. Code, § 2712(a), (c).) Mr. Heule and his predecessors before him have tried to reclaim the Rockaway Quarry for 37 years because the law requires that the quarry be reclaimed. Contrary to some public comments, SMARA does not say that reclamation means that the property owner can let the quarry reclaim itself
If the future use is open space indefinitely, then a lot of dirt needs to be hauled to the Property to fill the quarry pit and restore the slopes to natural conditions that existed before quarrying was conducted on the Property so that the Quarry is reclaimed and hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated. That is the fundamental premise of the 2023 Reclamation Plan. If, however, the future use is development in conjunction with reclamation, the reclamation plan can be designed so that some of the dirt can be replaced by the buildings and foundations so not as much import is needed to reclaim the site "to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses." That was the reason some of the prior reclamation plans which showed building pads had less fill.

But reclamation presents a chicken and an egg problem for the Rockaway Quarry Site.

Do you start with the future development (the "egg") or do you start with the reclamation (the "chicken")? The history of attempts to reclaim the Rockaway Quarry Site demonstrate that the property owner (Mr. Heule and his predecessors) have tried both strategies (the "chicken" and the "egg"), and so far, neither reclamation nor development has been allowed to proceed. The Pacifica City Council said "yes" to reclamation in 1996 and in 2016, but Pacifica residents said "no" to development (the "egg") -- time and time again for over 37 years.

Mr. Heule heard Pacifica residents say "no" to development most recently in 2016 which was why he teamed with Baylands to prepare a Reclamation Plan first, that complied with SMARA without development as part of the plan, until reclamation could proceed in the foreseeable future with development to follow at a later unspecified time. Because development has not been approved despite the Pacifica General Plan providing otherwise, the proposed 2023 Reclamation Plan was designed with the maximum amount of fill for future open space that would be required to comply with SMARA, the Coastal Act and the City of Pacifica General Plan, in the event future development is not approved yet again.

But it doesn't have to be that way. If the City of Pacifica and the residents desire future development on the Rockaway Quarry Site as the Pacifica General Plan has said since at least 1983, then reclamation in anticipation of future development can occur in a manner that achieves a significantly lower amount of fill. But the City of Pacifica and residents need to say "yes" to future development to make that a reality. Mr. Heule desires to proceed with both reclamation to comply with the law and future development as envisioned by Pacifica residents, and he BN 82485284v2

7.f
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

recognizes that to do so necessitates a collaborative planning process that takes time and community engagement as reclamation proceeds.

Background
The Rockaway Quarry is located between Rockaway Beach to the south, Mori Point Ridge to the north, Highway 1 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west in Pacifica (the "Quarry Property"). The Reclamation Plan provides the plan for land treatment of the Quarry Property that minimizes water degradation, air pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding, erosion and other adverse effects from surface mining so that mined lands are left in a usable condition as required by SMARA. Much of the Rockaway Quarry today is highly erodible and the face of the quarry is crumbling and parts of it are unstable. Many areas on the Quarry site are unsafe.

About the Prior Reclamation Plans
We understand that the City of Pacifica approved Reclamation Plans in 1971, 1978, 1983, 1991, 1996, and 2016. Each ofthe prior reclamation plans proposed differing levels of fill. None of the approved reclamation plans proposed a "no fill" option. The attached letter from Bay lands dated May 1, 2024 ("Bay lands Letter") summarizes the history of some of the prior reclamation efforts to respond to comments from the Planning Commission and encloses a matrix that highlights key features of the Reclamation Plans from 1996 and 2016 (see the Baylands Letter, Exhibit A).

To give the Planning Commission a perspective regarding the history of the Quarry Site, in 1986, the quarry officially stopped mining. In 1991, the City of Pacifica approved the 1991 Reclamation Plan, and issued the Quarry Use Permit 706-92 ("QUP") in 1992. The 1991 Reclamation Plan and 1992 QUP authorized on-site grading of about 800,000 CY. The grading included reducing the elevation of the southern ridge to create a building pad with ocean views in the quarry pit. Although dirt was not imported, additional rock would have been exported (about 300,000 CY) amounting to about 55 truck trips per day. Physical elements of the 1991 Reclamation Plan resemble the 1992 Reclamation Plan. In 1992, the City of Pacifica adopted the Hillside Preservation Ordinance but it did not apply to reclamation.

On October 28, 1996, the City of Pacifica City Council approved the Pacifica Quarry Reclamation Plan and QUP-779-96. The 1996 Reclamation Plan proposed lowering the Southern Bluff to elevation 85 and it involved cutting and filling approximately 807,200 cubic yards of material during two phases of work. 1 As explained in the attached Bay lands letter, the 1996 1 In I 998, the property owner proposed a Revised Reclamation Plan.There is no indication that the 1998 Revised Reclamation Plan was ever approved. The 1998 Reclamation Plan resembled the 1992 and 1996 Plans, only development of a second building pad was not proposed.

BN 82485284v2

7.f
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

Reclamation Plan never obtained Coastal Commission approval and reclamation according to the 1996 Reclamation Plan is no longer feasible.

About the Prior Development Efforts
City of Pacifica voters approved an initiative in 1983 requiring that rezoning for residential uses on the Rockaway Quarry Site be subject to an initiative. The City of Pacifica restricted new development in the Rockaway Beach area since February 1985 and in the summer of 1985, the City adopted an amendment to its General Plan which contemplated precise local planning efforts for future development.

The City of Pacifica adopted the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan in 1986. The 1986 Specific Plan encouraged mixed use commercial/residential development. Since the Rockaway Quarry closed and mining ceased in 1987, the property owner and prospective developers proposed various land uses and development proposals that were never approved. As you know, in 1999, the City of Pacifica constructed the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Calera Creek channel was realigned and restored on the Property, the effect of which was to limit the area available for future development should the Pacifica Quarry Site be reclaimed.

Two other mixed-use residential development efforts were proposed that were subject initiatives in 2000-2002 and in 2004-2006 and both efforts failed.

About the 2016 Reclamation Plan and Development Effort
In January 2016, Mr. Heule applied for approval of the 2016 Reclamation Plan and Quarry Use Permit-71-16. The 2016 Reclamation Plan was intended to reclaim the Quarry site while being adaptable to alternate land uses that would be developed concurrently. Thus, Mr.

Heu le submitted an initiative to the voters to approve residential rezoning of the Property as the alternate land use that corresponded to the 2016 Reclamation Plan but the vote failed. As a result, the 2016 Reclamation Plan remained incomplete and was never revised after the Coastal Commission submitted comments on the Plan requesting further justification for the proposed grading. Because Pacifica residents rejected residential development, there was no need to pursue the 2016 Reclamation Plan.

Importantly, the January 2016 Plan was preliminary and subject to change based on City, State and Federal regulatory approvals. No EIR or others studies were conducted because everything hinged on obtaining approval for residential use which would informed and impacted the scope of the EIR and regulatory oversight. Ballot initiative campaigns are executed on a short timeline to comply with the Elections Code and the focus was on development proposed in the 2016 ballot measure. The hope at the time was to minimize fill because bringing in fill is expensive and extends the development timeline. Both are undesirable from a developer's perspective. Specifically, at the time, a SMARA-compliant analysis was not performed because BN 82485284v2

7.f
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

agam 1t was premature. And clearly from an investment perspective it turned out to be the right decision as the development plan was voted down and all the expense and time which would have been invested would have been in vain. The attached matrix lists key features of the 2016 Reclamation Plan and the Baylands Letter explains why that plan was not feasible in 2016, and it is not feasible today.

The 2023 Reclamation Plan Reclaims the Property without Development After the voters rejected the ballot measure in November 2016, Mr. Heule enlisted the services of Bay lands to assist with the preparation of a reclamation plan and focused his efforts solely on reclamation to bring the limestone mine into compliance with state law and have the 7 figure letter of credit posted with the city released. Since that time, Mr. Heule and Mr. Gilmartin have been developing a Reclamation Plan that was focused on the quarry reclamation plan without the development component at this time. The scope of the 2023 Reclamation Plan was simply to bring the quarry back into compliance with SMARA. Both Mr. Heule and Baylands remain committed to complying with SMARA and executing the proposed Reclamation Plan.

Baylands revised the Reclamation Project as shown in the Walsh October 20, 2023 improvement plans to reduce the total amount of fill for reclamation (referred to as the "2023 Reclamation Plan") in a manner consistent with SMARA, the Coastal Act, the Hillside Preservation Ordinance and applicable State and Federal laws as explained in Exhibit A. The basis for the revisions reflected in the 2023 Reclamation Plan was to enhance public access to the coastline, by making the access path, on the southern bluff of the quarry site, ADA-compliant and compliant with the Hillside Preservation Ordinance. While this plan resulted in less fill than the prior Reclamation Plan, it nonetheless would result in modifications to the existing topography necessitating reclamation of the quarry with a maximum fill of up to 874,000 cubic yards. The reason is that the property owner needs to fill the quarry pit with fill ifthere are no buildings and foundations included as part of the reclamation plan to replace some of the fill. We understand that this amount of fill is more than the community and the Planning Commission desire but this plan complies with SMARA. If the reclamation plan includes development, there are potential ways to reduce the amount of fill trucked to the Property.

Further Clarifications to Reduced Fill Alternative Leverage the Potential for Future Development to Reclaim the Quarry
We heard the Planning Commission and public request that the 2023 Reclamation Plan be further revised to lessen the amount of proposed fill. The Planning Commission and public have asked "Why is there so much fill under the 2023 Reclamation Plan?" The reason that there is so much fill is that fill must be imported to fill the Quarry site to provide coverage of all disturbed mined lands, eliminate eroded and unvegetated mined areas, BN 82485284v2

7.f
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 6 ends

eliminate slopes steeper than 2: l, mitigate slopes adjacent to trails for safety, reclaim land contours conforming to the surrounding topography, and make the site adaptable for alternative land uses while anticipating that the site may never be developed anytime in the foreseeable future. Meeting these SMARA objectives and stabilizing the quarry face at the height where major erosion was identified on the face of the quarry has required substantially more fill material for the project to meet SMARA Section 2712c.

As you may recall, we previously offered comments on the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluation of the Reduced Fill Alternative. In our comments, we noted that we agreed with several commenters that the Final EIR should include further detail and explanation as to the actual effects of the Reduced Fill Alternative. While we appreciate the Draft EIR's thorough analysis of the Reclamation Plan, we were concerned that depending on how the Reduced Fill Alternative was designed, it could actually result in greater impacts rather than fewer impacts, based on how much fill and the way in which reclamation would occur.

The Reduced Fill Alternative described in the Draft EIR contemplated that the plan would be designed to use the minimum amount of fill to meet SMARA requirements. The Reduced Fill Alternative was designed to still meet the basic project objectives including reclamation to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. Even though development is not proposed as an element of the Reclamation Plan, the plan still needs to anticipate how to adapt the Quarry Site to allow future development in order to comply with SMARA. There is no "no fill" option; the quarry pit must be filled with something to reclaim it.

A reclamation plan that is designed to concurrently implement future residential development consistent with the General Plan would result in fewer impacts by replacing fill in the quarry with buildings and foundations.

The Reclamation Plan has always been about filling the quarry pit. My client needs to fill the quarry pit and grade the site to restore wetlands and habitat. It takes approximately 580,000 cubic yards to do that while implementing development as reclamation proceeds based on prior conceptual plans and some further engineering. Without development incorporated into the reclamation effort, reclaiming the Rockaway Quarry Site requires a lot more dirt as demonstrated by the proposed 2023 Reclamation Plan.

Mr. Heule is incentivized to import less fill, not more. It costs money to haul dirt. If there is no development, then Mr. Heule needs to pay for more dirt to reclaim the site under a SMARA-compliant reclamation plan. That is the 2023 Reclamation Plan.

For over 30 years, the Pacifica General Plan has contemplated that development, including residential uses, would occur on the Property after reclamation. Mr. Heule is interested in engaging in that specific planning process with the community to plan for future BN 82485284v2

7.f
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 7 ends

development on the Property while reclamation is underway. In this regard, if the City of Pacifica and the community do not object to future land uses as the Pacifica General Plan has planned for the Property, Mr. Heule would be in support of an approach whereby the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Reduced Fill Alternative for the Reclamation Plan consisting of up to approximately 580,000 cubic yards as the maximum amount of fill authorized to reclaim the Quarry Site subject to compliance with SMARA. The Reclamation Plan approval could then be conditioned to be implemented over the next three years with the objective to try to further reduce the fill to approximately 350,000 cubic yards as development plans progress.

As long as the planning process is underway and the City of Pacifica and the community approve the specific plan for development by the time that Bay lands has imported 350,000 cubic yards of material to fill the portions of the Quarry Site proposed for development, then the maximum amount of fill under the Reclamation Plan will never be realized. If development is never approved as has been the case since 1983, then to comply with SMARA and other regulatory agencies, Mr. Heule may have no choice but to finish the Reclamation Plan at the maximum amount of fill contemplated with the Reduced Fill Alternative. If development consistent with the General Plan is approved and implemented in the future then the amount of fill necessary to reclaim the Quarry Site will be closer to the minimum.

We heard the Planning Commission and public and their concerns about reclamation of the Quarry Site without development and worked on a strategy to address their concerns, and in many ways this is just returning to the prior reclamation plan efforts that contemplated the concurrent implementation ofreclamation with development of future land uses. Mr. Heule's consideration of ways to reduce fill by concurrently implementing development would make the Reduced Fill Alternative feasible and meet the basic project objectives with even fewer impacts than the Project and the Draft EIR Reduced Fill Alternative such as:
► Less fill imported to the Property,
► Fewer truck trips,
► Safer, stable slopes remediating the existing eroding slopes, ► Safe and improved trails,
► More wetlands and ESHA habitat, and
► Controlled surface runoff and improved water quality.

Starting with reclamation provides the time the community and Mr. Heule needs in order to engage in a collaborative planning process for future development. Reclamation of the Quarry Site presents an opportunity to contribute to the future of Pacifica by reclaiming one of the oldest un-reclaimed quarries in the State in order to accommodate future visitor serving commercial and residential uses as the General Plan has envisioned for over 30 years.

BN 82485284v2

7.f
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Christian Murdock
May 9, 2024

Page 8 ends

We appreciate your consideration of our proposed strategy and look forward to obtaining the Planning Commission's direction regarding next steps regarding achieving reclamation that is adaptable to the future use of the Property.

AG:nj
Attachment
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Paul Heule
Billy Gilmartin
BN 82485284v2
Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra

7.f
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) May 31, 2024
Paulus C. Heu/e
Chair Hauser and Members of the Planning
Commission
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation Plan
Dear Chair Hauser:

I wanted to thank you and the Pacifica Planning Commission for the productive discussion at the May 20, 2024 Study Session regarding the Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation effort.

As I stated at the Study Session, I am committed to working with the City of Pacifica (City) and the community to explore possible options for further reducing the amount of imported fill that is necessary to fill the quarry in anticipation of future development consistent with the Pacifica General Plan vision for the Rockaway Quarry property after reclamation is approved. Starting with reclamation now will allow us to comply with the State's mandate for reclamation.

In the meantime, I have instructed my team to address the public and Planning Commission's comments and questions raised at last Monday evening's Study Session with the goal of scheduling the Rockaway Project Reclamation Plan for consideration at your earliest available upcoming Planning Commission meeting.

I appreciate the time you have devoted to the reclamation eff01t for the Quarry site and I look forward to obtaining the Planning Commission's direction regarding our proposed Reclamation Plan in the very near future.

BN 82816513v6
www.eenhoorn .com
231 W Fulton Street
Grand Rapids, Ml 49503
tel 616.530.5500
fax 616.530 0850
[email protected]

7.f
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) cc: Kevin Woodhouse
Christian Murdock
Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Alicia Guerra
BN 82816513v4
231 W. Fulton Street I tel 616.530 5500
Grand Rapids, Ml 49503 fax 616.530 0850
www.eenhoorn.com

7.f
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
July 2, 2024
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
Stefanie Cervantes, Interim Deputy Director
Planning Department
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation Plan - File No. 2016-001 Dear Kavitha and Stefanie:
425 MARKF.T STREET
SVJTE2900
SAN f-RANCISCO, CA 94105
415.22 7 .0900 Pl IOC\'E
415.227.0770 FAX
115 227.3508 Direct
[email protected]
As you know, Buchalter, APC, represents Paul Heule and The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC (''The Preserve") and Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC ("Baylands") regarding the land use approvals for reclamation of the Rockaway Quarry in the City of Pacifica ("Pacifica"). Baylands is processing a reclamation plan ("Reclamation Plan") at The Preserve's request to reclaim the Rockaway Quarry. The Preserve and Baylands appreciate the public and Planning Commission's recent deliberations at the May 20, 2024 Study Session concerning the proposed Reclamation Plan and associated land use approvals referenced as File No. 2016-001.

The purpose of this letter is to supplement our prior submittals and address the Planning Commission's comments regarding the proposed Reclamation Plan and again explain how the applicant approached the reclamation effort with an objective of further lessening the amount of imported fill. Our prior letter dated May 9, 2024, as well as our prior submittals from October 2023 are hereby incorporated by reference as many of the questions from the Planning Commission were addressed in the May 9, 2024 Letter and our prior application materials.

There is No "No Imported Fill" Option
The State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ("SMARA") governs the Reclamation Plan. As we explained at the prior Planning Commission meetings and in our application submittals, surface mining operations are required to prepare and file a reclamation plan for closed mines. (Pub. Res. Code,§ 2770.) Mining at the Rockaway Quarry resulted in an internal BN 83242555v7
bucha lter.com
Los.Angel~*
Oe:Tuet
Napa Vdiley
Nas.hiiill~
Ort1ng:e, County
Ponl~nd
S,.,.c,..imento
Sal, L..a~c C~y
~n Uiego
Son f r.aincis::o
Scottsdcl!e
5,._..i:l~e

7.f
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024
Page2
bowl open to the east with adjoining bluffs to the west fronting the ocean. On the eastern (internal) side of those bluffs, mining left near-vertical rock faces, about 140 feet in height from the quarry floor to the shear zone on the main face and 60 feet in height from the sheer zone to the hilltop as described in the 2023 Reclamation Plan. To match the existing topography and, therefore, restore the hillock that once occurred on the Quarry site requires creating a rounded, naturalistic landfom,. This work requires 944,000 cubic yards of fill, as shown in the applicant's proposed Reclamation Plan which is focused on leaving the site in a natural condition (see the John Zentner Land Planning and Restoration, LLC Memorandum entitled "Pacifica Quarry Fill" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A ("Zentner Memorandum").

Mr. Heule however, has attempted to further reduce the amount of fill necessary to fill the quarry. There is no "no fill" option because the quarry pit must be filled with something to reclaim it in accordance with SMARA. To identify other lower fill options, Walsh Engineering, the project engineer, evaluated the General Plan's designation for the Quarry Site. The General Plan designates the project site as a Special Area. The site is zoned Visitor Serving Commercial.

Most of the permitted uses would require a relatively flat pad or terraced pads. Building such a pad would reduce the amount of fill required to about 653,000 cubic yards as explained in the June 21, 2024 Walsh Engineering Memorandum, Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Technical Responses to Items Noted in the May 20, 2024 City Study Session attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B ("Walsh Memorandum"). Reclaiming the site for General Plan consistent- uses trades off restoration o_f a natural hillslope for creation of a potential development site consistent with SMARA.

Development Pad with Reduced Fill Option
The applicant's original Reclamation Plan proposed 1,055,000 cubic yards of fill in order to match the existing topography and meet SMARA's requirements as explained in Exhibit A.

The applicant team then reduced the amount of fill to 944,000 cubic yards in the October 2023 Revised Reclamation Plan. In response to comments and questions from the Planning Commission at its March 18, 2024 Public Hearing, the applicant team once again lowered the 944,000 cubic yards to 653,000 cubic yards by replacing imported fill with a pad consistent with General Plan land uses as explained at the May 20, 2024 Study Session. Even with these reductions, the Commission asked iflhe amount of imported fill could be further lowered.

The surrounding topography imposes a physical constraint in generating fill on site.

Exhibit B summarizes the engineering associated with generating fill material on site to fill the quarry. The reduced amount of fill associated with flat development pads does not rely on any specific type of development based on zoning. Regardless of the type of development, the reduced quantity fills the Quarry floor to a pad elevation of85 feet and extends a 2: I fill slope up 5 0 feet higher than the pad to the l 3 5 foot elevation contour to restore the Quarry face. This conforms with SMARA while resulting in an estimated 5 acres ofland area that could be BJ\ 83242555v7

7.f
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 3 ends

developed with General Plan land uses in the future, which represents about 64% of the 7.8 acre pad area shown on the General Plan Figure 4-7 as shown on the next page.

Another constraint to being able to generate fill on-site is the City's Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Ordinance which also guides the maximum amount of coverage area allowed to be disturbed with reclamation or development. Removing more of the hilltop in order to generate material to fill the quarry will expand the grading limits for the disturbed area in conflict with the HPD Ordinance which requires that the existing hillside be preserved, Increasing the grading limits exceeds the allowable coverage area for HPD Requirements in conflict with the HPD Ordinance. As it is, the proposed modest topographic alteration contemplated with the proposed Reclamation Plan at 944,000 cubic yards necessitates a variance in order to comply with the allowable coverage area under the HPD. Removal of the hilltop1 to generate more onsite fill to balance the 653,000 cubic yards, for example, would expand the coverage area by another estimated 5 acres which would result in an even greater conflict with the HPD ordinance.

My client needs to fill the quarry pit and grade the site to restore wetlands and habitat as part of reclamation. It takes approximately 653,000 cubic yards of fill (583,000 cubic yards of which is imported fill), to do that even with a future effort to implement development as reclamation proceeds. Without the ability to replace dirt with foundations, reclaiming the Rockaway Quarry requires a lot more dirt as demonstrated by the proposed 2023 Reclamation Plan. The reason is that the amount of fill needed to fill the quarry is driven by the existing topography and not by the type of development that may someday be developed on the Property. 1 Prior geologic investigations were conducted in conjunction with the 1996 and 1998 Reclamation Plans that demonstrated that removing the hilltop would r~quirc some combination of blasting, hammering, and excavation.

AN 83242555v7

7.f
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024
Page4
HN 83242555v7
RO< kclw<1y Bec1ch,
Quarry.&
Headlands---...,.,_
Parir.~a
State
Bwich
t 'J~,. '.)~"' . ..., :Aft,~ (lln1....,, l-:-i'i1J ~ntl~I '.\.I, ,..A t ·-..~ '-'"...,1,J-J..-.tti,,, .. I •lr L+CI.~ .,.ul• ... r:, •• ,. ,fl<,1111l•.f.a1~·. :~o: ~:~~ _ ~kkt-t'-11
:\l,J.um l~c-n<-\, Rc~LLl,mc..U •l•I ; .. .., ...... ,..;,• •st~ o.:: ->o,;,C'~~r~K- 11->:y~...-!i:•1,<-lu~
~; up l l .1(1..:~-dt1At 1..1r11.t_o. rt,· ~ms, J.at.
- 1-tci,~1 (ull\f'lt"I.J
~"~i.:r t '.omns.ttt.·1~
Figure 4-7: Pacifica, Central
flJdS oo.n.oPIIDtl NO,..J8.05
- IIDllDPIEff - 41U!II
---~•=
-=~<-O-c11ES
7_
f',4.rk h.-i,,ro"u1Knl
l~r'lflUllll'.""
(:vJ>l,i.l .,\c,·(..;s IJ,:..BI)
, .. <.Kh.
t;,1~~t.;:i.i. \~·,c.,,~ Pv-nt .. (Mufl"1Jr:\'i, ... -l ,C, 114
-----------"'
- [:K»'CLnJ1r.:iLf
- - Pwr•"C'dfr.uf
■ f'.11~1,i T1.ii.llK.1~
g Tr.,.ib<.J 1~1 l'<
lm~t'IN

7.f
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 5 ends

Approval of Reclamation to allow time to Plan for Future Development does not Constitute Piecemealing
Some commenters suggested at the Study Session that the City is required to conduct environmental review in one document for both the reclamation portion of the Project and future unknown development to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The purpose of this letter is to explain why CEQA does not require that the City evaluate unknown, speculative future development as part of the Reclamation Project.

Generally, CEQA defines a "project" as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment," and includes an activity "that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." (Pub. Res.

Code,§ 21065.) Meanwhile, lhe CEQA Guidelines (contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) further clarify this definition, explaining that a "project" is "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a) (emphasis added).) The ''tenn 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies" but "does not mean each separate governmental approval." (CEQJ\ Guidelines,§ 15378(c).

As with most State and Federal environmental laws, CEQA, however, only requires an analysis of reasonably foreseeable future actions, not those that are speculative. CEQA requires environmental review of al I phases of a project "that will foreseeably result from project approval." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.) However, courts have opined time and time again that environmental review need not analyze speculative and unknown activities. For example, the Laurel Heights Court held that an EIR does not need to evaluate a "specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in a planner's eye." (Id. at p. 398.) "A detailed environmental analysis of every precise usc that may conceivably occur is not necessary at this stage." (Id.) See also the Court of Appeal's decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2016) which held that an EIR need not analyze the potential for pumping of groundwater after the expiration of a 50-year tenn because any extension was speculative. (247 Cal.App.4th 326, 332, 350.) Also see, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board ofPorl Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 which held that an airport EIR need not include future projects that "existed only as concepts in long-range p I ans that were subject to constant revision." ( at p. 1361). Similarly, the Court in National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County ofRiverside (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1505 held that a landfill EIRneed not analyze the potential for future processing plants because ''their exact locations to serve the project are unknown at this time" and it was not known who will be operating them. (at pp. 1518-19.) Undertaking the analysis of those impacts at that time BN 83242555v7

7.f
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024
Page6
"would involve speculation and conjecture." (at p. 1519.) These cases are no different than the unknown future of the Rockaway Quarry site.

Mr. Heule does not have any plans for development of his property. Property owners and developers, and Mr. Heule, himself, have tried for over 30 years to develop the Rockaway Quarry site to no avail. The last time that development was proposed in 2018, the voters rejected it just like they did in prior decades. Development is speculative at best. Our proposed strategy for clarifying further the Draft EIR's Reduced Fill Alternative is to proceed with reclamation to provide time for the City and Mr. Heule to engage in a planning process to determine what future development could look like. This is not piecemealing. Tt is buying time for a collaborative planning process as the adopted General Plan envisions.

Quality of Fill Material
We would also like to respond to public comment letters received prior to our last May 20, 2024 Study Session related to Soil Testing and Environmental Screen Levels that wc provided in the Reclamation Plan and technical reports. As we stated in our October 2023 materials and offered in response to comments at the March 18, 2024 Public Hearing and May 20, 2024 Study Session, all of the soil sampling, testing, procedures, and methods provided in the Reclamation Plan, as amended and submitted to the City in October 2023, meet and exceed soil testing requirements as provided by the Department of Toxic Substance and Control, and State and Federal regulations. Furthermore, the amended soil management plan (dated October 2023) attached to this letter as Exhibit C provided confirmation testing procedures that could be facilitated by the City, at its own discretion, subject to reimbursement by the Project applicant. Therefore, there is no merit to any of the comments made with respect to soil testing included in the comment letters provided to the City before the May 20, 2024 hearing. '
Next Steps
As Mr. Hculc stated at the May 20, 2024 Study Session, he would be in support of an approach whereby the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Draft EIR Reduced Fill Alternative for the Reclamation Plan consisting of up to approximately 583,000 cubic yards as the maximum amount of imported till lo reclaim the Quarry Site subject to compliance with SMARA. The Reclamation Plan approval could then be conditioned to be implemented over the next three years as development plans progress.

We propose the following condition for the City's consideration, if the City is interested in proceeding with the Reduced Fill Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR and shown in the attached "Preliminary Concept Plan Illustrating Reduced Fill of the Development Area Shown on the General Plan Figure 4-7" attached as Rx hi bit D to this letter (hereinafter, the "Preliminary Grading Plan"):

BN 83242555v7

7.f
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024
Page7
• The City could condition the selection of the Reduced Fill Alternative so that Lhe property owner/applicant may fill the quarry as shown in the Preliminary Concept Plan up to a maximum of 583,000 cubic yards of imported fil I. The applicant/property owner will agree to implement the Reclamation Plan in accordance with the Preliminary Concept Plan and limit the amount of imported fill material in a phased manner. After the necessary permits and authorizations are obtained to initiate reclamation, the applicant/ property owner would limit the amount of imported fill to 100,000 cubic yards in each of the first two years as the planning process is underway. Once the draft specific plan is released for public review, the applicant/property owner would be allowed to import fill for another 200,000 cubic yards until the Specific Plan is approved. If the Specific Plan is approved by 2027, then the applicant/property owner will limit the amount of imported fill to a total of 400,000 cubic yards provided that sufficient fill material can be generated on site to fill the quarry so that development of the future end uses contemplated in the General Plan may proceed after reclamation. In the event, the Specific Plan is not approved by 2027, then the applicant/property owner will be allowed to complete the reclamation of the quarry at the maximwn of 583,000 cubic yards of imported fill. Tf the City selects the Reduced Fill Alternative as shown in the Preliminary Concept Plan and the Specific Plan proceeds, then the applicant/property owner will revise the adaptive management plan (submitted in October 2023 and Page 15 Table I), to limit import fill in accordance with the phasing of the Reclamation Plan set forth in this condition.

BN 83242555v7

7.f
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
July 2, 2024

Page 8 ends

We appreciate your consideration of our proposed strategy to address the Planning Commission's comments and look forward to obtaining the Planning Commission's direction regarding next steps regarding achieving reclamation that is adaptable to the future use of the Property.

AG:nj
Attachments
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Kevin Woodhouse
Paul Heule
Billy Gilmartin
BN 83242555v7
Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
~ ---
Alicia Guerra

7.f
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Exhibit A
John Zentner Land
Planning & Restoration LLC
Pacifica Quarry Fill
The proposed reclamation project at the Quarry is driven by the requirements of the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which requires that all mines be reclaimed once they have ceased production.

Mining at the Quarry resulted in an internal bowl open to the east with adjoining bluffs to the west fronting the ocean. On the eastern (internal) side of those bluffs, mining left near-vertical rock faces, about 140 feet in height from the quarry floor to the shear zone on the main face and 60 feet in height from the sheer zone to the hilltop. The relevant SMARA criteria and their applicability to the Quarry site are as follows:
2712 {c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated The Quarry includes heavily used trails on the bluff faces looking out over the ocean. These trails are directly above the Quarry face and a misstep from one of these trails would and has sent people over the edge of the face. The California Coastal Act protects existing access, thus these paths cannot be eliminated. Accordingly, the internal Quarry cliffs must be modified to eliminate the existing safety hazard to these trails. 3704 (d} Final reclaimed fill slopes .... sha/1 not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). To reclaim the near-vertical cliff faces with 2: 1 slopes requires a substantial amount of fill; the crosssections provided as part of the Reclamation Plan provide the best illustration. 3704 (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.

The current proposed end use is described in the Reclamation Plan as:

Page two

7.f
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) To match the existing topography and, therefore, restore the hillock that once occurred on the Quarry site requires creating a rounded, naturalistic landform. This work will require 944,000 CY of fill, as illustrated in the applicant's proposed Reclamation Plan.

Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states, .... "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected ..... Permitted development shall be sited and designed to ..... minimize the alteration of natural land forms"
Similarly, grading the coastal bluffs further would create significant issues with the City's HPD.

7.f
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Date:

Subject:

Exhibit B

MEMORANDUM
6/21/2024
Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan
1108 Garden Street Suite 202-204
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(BOS) 319-4948
www.walshengineering.net
Technical Responses to Items Noted in the May 20th, 2024 City Study Session Questions were raised at the May 20th, 2024 Study Session for the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation. This letter is intended to be a response to the technical portion of questions raised in relation to the civil engineering.

Minimum Amount of Fill
SMARA Section 3704(e} states all fill slopes shall conform with the surrounding topography and/or approved end use. If the approved end use is open space without flat development pads, the minimum amount of fill necessary to reclaim the Quarry is 944,000 cubic yards in order to comply with SMARA Section 3704(e). If the approved end use is to include flat development pads, the minimum amount of fill necessary to reclaim the Quarry is 653,000 cubic yards. Both of these amounts of fill result in restoring the Quarry face with fill up to the elevation of the 13S foot contour. Hiking trails exist above the 135 foot contour. Immediately below the 135 foot contour, there are near vertical mining cuts, visible eroded slopes, and a visible lack of vegetated cover which has resulted in significant erosion and instability. We previously submitted a plan exhibit dated 4/24/2024 overlaying the Reclamation Grading Plan on top of an aerial image which depicted the 135 foot contour elevation in relation to proposed grading and the existing issues described above. We also previously submitted a Technical Memorandum dated 11/14/2023, further revised and resubmitted with date 4/9/2024, which outlined specific SM ARA Requirements in addition to Section 3704(e) noted above, which guided the proposed reclamation in regard to areas disturbed by mining, adaptability, public health & safety, water quality, watershed control, slope steepness, and accessibility.

Development Pad with Reduced Fill Option
The reduced amount of fill associated with the flat development pads described above does not rely on any specific type of development in terms of zoning. Regardless of the type of development, the reduced quantity fills the Quarry floor to a pad elevation of 85 feet and extends a 2:1 fill slope up 50 feet higher than the pad to the 135 foot elevation contour to restore the Quarry face. This conforms with SMARA while resulting in an estimated 5-acres of developabfe area. The current General Plan Figure 4-7 indicates approximately 7 .8 acres of pad area for development. Therefore, the reduced fill option would result in about 64% of the development area when compared to the pad outlined in the General Plan Figure 4-7.

Hillside Preservation District (HPD)
The City's provisions for the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) guide the maximum amount of coverage area allowed to be disturbed with reclamation or development. Removing more of the Hill Top will result in an increase of the grading limits for disturbed area, thus the allowable coverage area for H PD Requirements will be further exceeded.

Sincerely,
Matt Walsh, PE, QSD/P
Walsh Engineering
References: As noted above; Copy To: (Walsh Engineering File)

Page 1 ends

2016008 _20240621 responses to study session comment summary\_Memo Study Session Responses_20240621.docx

7.f
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Exhibit C
Soils Management Plan Update

7.f
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

BAVLANDS PACIFICA
Plt:ClilllW I .AlcSTORIE
October 20, 2023

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

PLANNING DIRECTOR

CITY OF PACIFICA I PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 , [email protected]
RE: Responses to Soil Testing Comments for Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Project in Pacifica, CA
Mr. Murdock,
In the original quarry reclamation application documents, Baylands Pacifica (BSP) provided a Soil Management Plan (SMP) dated November 2019, and Updated in September of 2021.

Subsequent to the June 5, 2023 hearing, BSP has updated the SMP. Please find the updated SMP, dated October 2023, attached to this letter.

The updates to the SMP address comments we received from Planning and public comments received by City Planning. This letter summarizes our responses to comments received on the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Project at the June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting, and addresses changes incorporated into the SMP.

1. Heightened Soil Testing
The soil management plan included in our application documents provide for testing procedures, frequency, sampling, and analysis in accordance with DTSC guidelines. In the June 5, 2023 hearing City Planning asked if we would allow the City, and/or its representatives, to perform additional testing of imported soil on site, so as to confirm that import soil meets the acceptance criteria established in the Soil Management Plan. Please let this letter serve as confirmation that BSP agrees to allow the City and its representatives to collect and test soil samples from the project to confirm imported soil meet the requirements set forth in the Soil Management Plan throughout the duration of the Reclamation project. BSP agrees to reimburse the City for its costs incurred to performing "heighted soil testing", for a total of 4 test events per year (one test per quarter).

BSP requests the City follow these steps, when performing on-site confirmation testing.

1. Provide 10-day written notice to the Applicant of an on-site sampling activity, so as to allow for coordination on site, and to ensure BSP can provide safe access to the City and its representatives.

2. Locations of Soil Samples taken by the City and its representatives will be recorded by BSP and the City and its representatives using GPS instrumentation, with sub-meter

7.f
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

BAYLANDS PACIFICA
accuracy. GPS coordinates will be recorded in the Chain of Custody forms associated with each sample.

3. The amount of samples taken will adhere to BSP Environment and Geotechnical Sumbittal Guidelines for Borrow Sampling (Ref. Section 2 of the BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines)

4. Soil samples will be tested per Section 4 of the Soil Management Plan by an ELAP accredited laboratory.

5. Test results will be shared with BSP within 5 business days of receipt.

If confirmation testing shows a sample of soil exceeds the acceptance criteria provided within the Soil Management Plan, then BSP will perform additional testing on-site to establish the limits of non-compliant soil. Once the limits of non-compliant soil have been identified then BSP will remove non-compliant soil, transport and dispose of material at an off site disposal location in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations.

2. Fungi Testing in Soil
The revised October 2023 Soil Management Plan requires all import soil to be screened for 1) Sudden Oak Death Fungi, and 2) Valley Fever Fungi. Any prospective import soil which tests positive for either Sudden Oak Death or Valley Fever Fungi, will be issued a Soil Rejection Letter from BSP, and therefore will not be allowed on-site.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter, or changes reflected in the attached Soil Management Plan.

Sin~
Billy Gilmartin

7.f
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
for the
The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC

AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN
at the Pacifica Quarry
Pacifica, California
Prepared by:

Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Created: November 2019
Updated: September 2021
Updated: October 2023

7.f
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose & Objectives
This Soil Management Plan was prepared to define the operations associated with completing the Approved Amended Reclamation Plan (the Facility) at the Pacifica Quarry site, identify operational requirements and limitations, and establish a reporting mechanism between the Operator (Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC aka "BSP"), land owner (The Preserve @ Pacifica, LLC aka "PAP") and those governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the site and its operations.

1.2 Site Location & Map
The Pacifica Quarry site consists of APN # 180-150-110 and APN # 180-150-120 (the "West Parcel" shown as Exhibit A) together with APN # 180-150-150 (the "East Parcel" shown in Exhibit B), collectively described as the "Property". It is bounded by Rockaway Beach to the south, Mori Point Ridge to the north, Highway 1 to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west in the City of Pacifica within San Mateo County, California. The Project Area consists of the West Parcel (Exhibit A) and existing access roads crossing the east parcel as shown in Section 1.7.

1.3 Site History & Context
The Pacifica Quarry, an open pit mine from which limestone, greenstone, shale and chert was extracted, is located on the Property. Mining operations at the Pacific Quarry ceased in 1987, and the Property requires reclamation. The Project Team has prepared and submitted to the City of Pacifica ("City''), revisions to an application for a Quarry Use Permit and an amendment to Reclamation Plan for the Property Soil Management Plan Page 1 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) (collectively, the "Amended Reclamation Plan") pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA") and the City's Mining and Reclamation Ordinance. The Amended Reclamation Plan will be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

As part of the Amended Reclamation Plan, a grading plan (the "Grading Plan") was prepared by Walsh Engineering dated 03/16/2020. As shown on the Grading Plan, approximately 970,000cubic yards of soil imports are required to reclaim the West Parcel.

As the Contractor, BSP will reclaim the Property by (l) receiving, managing, and placing imported soil to the Property that satisfies certain environmental standards that will be set forth in this Soil Import Management Plan (the "Soil Management Plan"), (ii) depositing and compacting the Imported Soil, (iii) grading the Property, (iv) constructing a new access road on the Property, and (v) re-vegetating the Property. There is no proposal to develop the Property following the completion of the reclamation work at this time.

1.4 Owner's Name and Address:

The Preserve@Pacifica, LLC
231 W. Fulton St.,
Grand Rapids, Ml 49503
Attn: Paul C. Heule
Email: [email protected]

1.5 Contracted Operator's Name and Address:

Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
600 Castro Street, San
Leandro CA 94577
Attn: Bill Gilmartin
Email: bqilmartin@ba ylandspacifica. com

1.6 Current Conditions
The Property is a fonner mine dominated by often-steep slopes, non- native plant species and informal accessways. For ease of discussion, the site includes the following elements from roughly north to south: 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 parcel); the Quarry Face (the scarp left by mining in the parcel center), 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 Hilltop is the high ground of the parcel and is located above the Quarry Face and East Flank and south of the adjacent Golden Gate National Recreation Area's Soil Management Plan Page 2 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) (GGNRA's) Mori Point. The Hilltop is relatively flat and smooth and extends down over the south slope to a shear zone just above the limestone of the Quarry Face. The hilltop also has two mounds protruding approximately 20 feet above the surface. In contrast with its adjacent landscapes, the surface of the Hilltop has soil and moderate vegetation cover.

The Quarry Face is predominately an exposed limestone face with approximately 170 feet in elevation gain. The lower two thirds of the Face are steep, comprised of exposed limestone, and are sparsely vegetated. Approximately 120 feet above the old quany floor, two thirds of the way up the Face, an old access road cuts horizontally across the Face. Above the road, the Face gives way to the Hilltop at the geologic shear zone that separates the limestone from greenstone. The access road and upper slope have moderate vegetation cover.

The Quarry Pit is predominately flat and vegetated with non-native species. Steep slopes, including the Face, surround the Pit to the north, west, and south. To the east, the Quarry Pit abuts the City-owned parcel and Calera Creek. An approximately 7,800 square foot, 10-foot-deep depression is located near the eastern edge. North of the depression is an elevated, predominately exposed rock surface.

Soil Management Plan Page 3 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) tw-Trans

Soil Management Plan Page 4 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 2 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS

2.1 Overview of Operations
The Facility's operations geographically consist of approximately 28.2acres of the Quarry Site located west of the existing creek. Access to the site will be as stated in Section 1 . 7.

The Facility accepts "Soil" that does not exceed the environmental screening limits as defined by the State of California Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Region.

The Facility requires that materials go through an Environmental Screening Process (ESP) prior to being accepted as suitable import materials. The Environmental Screening Limits (ESL's) for the chemicals being evaluated align with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) residential ESL's and generally accepted background levels previously accepted by the RWQCB and the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

Once approved by the Materials Regulation Specialist (MRS}, a list of approved projects will be given a designated, unique identification number by the Operator and given to BSP's Gate Operator and PAP's designated representative. Quantity and timing of material deliveries are dependent on the individual project and vary daily.

When deliveries arrive at the Facility, the Gate Operator will check them against the "approved list" to confirm compliance with the prior approvals. If the Gate Operator determines that the import materials are not associated with the "approved list" or appears to have been tampered with, the Gate Operator will reject the load.

2.2 -Related On-Site Operations
Proposed activities include the following:

1. Administrative office and related equipment in a temporary modular unit; Soil Management Plan Page 5 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

2. Heavy Equipment storage and maintenance; (2) screening plants, (2) loaders, (1) excavator, (1) water truck, (1) tractor, and (2) pick-up trucks, as needed; Soil Management Plan Page 6 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

3. Miscellaneous tools and equipment including lab equipment, tool box containers, power generator;

4. Vehicle parking- ranging between 3 to 6 vehicles;

5. Implementation of the Site's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP);

6. Site grading and maintenance of SWPPP measures and access road,

7. Temporary stockpiling of soil prior to placement and compaction;

8. Temporary storage and off-haul of site generated debris which includes debris boxes.

9. Temporary storage of BSP's, and its representatives, construction equipment, miscellaneous tools in containers and various framing and structural support materials.

10. Revegetate the Property in accordance with the Approved Amended Reclamation Plan

2.3 Source for Imported Materials.

Soil Management Plan Page 7 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The following section identifies those entities that have regulatory jurisdiction over the operations of the Facility as they apply to the Project Site. Sections 3.1 through 3.5 are specific to the primary operations pertaining to importing, processing and exporting soil.

3.1 City of Pacifica
The City of Pacifica has ultimate permitting authority of the site. In accordance with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 2 entitled "Quarries," consisting of sections 9-

2.01 through 9-2.17 codified from Ordinance No. 365, as amended by Ord. 151-C.S. eff. August 13, 1975, Ord. 349-C.S., eff. November 10, 1982, and Ord. 414-C.S., eff.

August 8, 1984), the Project's Operating Permit will comply with the City approved Amended Reclamation Plan and requirements outlined in the Projects certified EIR.

3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
The site is required to comply with the Order issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region and State of California's General Storm Water Permit associated with Industrial Activities.

3.2.1 General Storm Water Permit associated with Industrial Activities Requirements Applicable to the Operator
The site is required to comply with the California's General Storm Water Permit associated with Industrial Activities which generally requires facility operators to:

1. Eliminate unauthorized non-storm water discharges;

2. Develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP); and

3. Perform monitoring of storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges.

A Notice of Intent in confonnance with the California National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with industrial activities was filed on on behalf of the current reclamation activities. A Soil Management Plan Page 8 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) stonn water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that incorporated best management practices (BMPs) was submitted to the California State Water Resources Board (State Board).

The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality issued a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number prior to site operations.

3.4 California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On July 26, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted a regulation to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from inuse (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations.

As required by the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulation, GARB requires that off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles are registered using CARB's Diesel Off-Road On-Line Reporting System (DOORS). This program provides a public database which includes GARB certification by an Executive Order that the equipment is in compliance with all regulatory standards.

Operator's current equipment is registered with the DOORS program and all proposed equipment will be registered to ensure compliance.
4 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

SWPPP BMP's are proactively updated and corrected, as needed. Working with PAP, the Operator will ensure proper monitoring and reporting per the existing SWPPP.

Erosion control measures (e.g., hydro-seeding) are applied to undisturbed operational areas while active areas are maintained daily.

4.2 Proposed SWPPP
Soil Management Plan Page 9 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Based on the proposed operations described within this Plan, the SWPPP will be amended as necessary to identify an effective combination of erosion and sediment control for all disturbed areas during the rainy season, as required by permit. Note that active (or disturbed) areas are operational year-round. The amount of active operations can be significantly less during the winter season.

Erosion and sediment controls will be designed and implemented using guidance in the latest editions of the California Storm Water Quality Association's (CASQA) Industrial and Construction Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks or the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual. Disturbed areas include roadways, slopes, and stockpiles.

Soil Management Plan Page 10 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 5 Operations Reporting

5.1 Bi- Monthly Reports
BSP will submit a bi-monthly report the City of Pacifica. The report will contain information from the Operator and summarize the following information:
a. Field Activities
b. Storm Water
i. BMP's Status and Location Map
c. Imported Materials
i. Estimated Monthly Quantities
ii. Load Counts by truck type/size.
d. Approved list of Projects & Supporting Documentation Soil Management Plan Page 11 of 10 September 2021

7.f
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
The following guidelines are provided as a prescriptive step process to ensure the contractual and regulatory requirements for Baylands Soil Pacifica are met and the appropriate quality control documentation is provided in a timely manner. Please contact [email protected] for questions.

Soil Review & Acceptance Guidelines

1. Complete Source Information Form (SIF)
a. See Exhibit A
b. Do not leave any area blank.
c. Submit via email to [email protected]

2. Determine Number of Samples for Environmental Analysis by type of project:
a. Borrow Area (e.g., one common piece of property with the same use; commonly referred to as a Mass Excavation)
b. Stockpile (e.g., pipelines, multiple locations, multiple uses on one site) Environmental Sampling Requirements
Borrow Area (aka Mass Excavation)
2 acres or less 4 discreet samples
2 to 4 acres Minimum 1 sample per½ acre
4 to 10 acres Minimum 8 samples
Greater than 10 acres
Minimum of 8 locations with 4 subsamples per
location
Stockpile(!)
Up to 1,000 cubic yards (CY) 1 sample per 250 CY
1,000 CY to 5,000 CY 4 samples for first 1,000CY's plus 1 sample for each additional 500 CY
Greater than 5,000 CY 12 samples for first 5,000CY's plus 1 sample for each additional 500 CY

1. Composite samples are acceptable provided they don't exceed 4:1 ratio.

For example: 2-point (2:1) composite may represent up to 500 CY for stockpile material. 4-point (4:1) composite may represent up to 1,000 CY for stockpile material.

BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 1 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil

1. For projects that are 1,000 Cubic Yards or more - 1 EA Plasticity Index is required for every 2,500 Cubic Yards of Material to be imported. b. Expansion Index:
i. Import sources/projects seeking approval to import material into BSP Pacifica Site must submit one (1) test for Expansion Index test for every 5,000 Cubic Yards of Import which exceed the first 5,000 Cubic Yards of import. ii. Expansion Index Frequency:

1. For projects that are 5,000 Cubic Yards or less - No Expansion Index test is required.

2. For projects 5,000 cubic yards or more:
a. 1 test for every 5,000 Cubic Yards after the first 5,000 Cubic Yards of Import.

4. Testing:
a. Normally provided by contractor but can be performed by BSP staff at an additional cost.

Contact BSP for pricing.
b. ONLY BSP Staff are allowed to conduct sampling and testing for materials located on BSP facilities. This includes materials imported beyond the estimated volume as shown on the Source Information Form.
c. Prior Environmental and Geotechnical Reports may be used for preliminary screening; however, BSP requires laboratory testing performed within the past 6 months for purpqses of review and approval.
d. Composited soil samples shall be analyzed for the following constituents:
• voes, including MTBE and TPH - GRO (EPA Method 8260B); • SVOCs (EPA Method 8270C}; 8270C SIM may be used to augment 8270C • Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081 );
• PCBs (EPA Method 8082);
• TPH - D and MO (EPA Method 8015);
• Chromium +6 (EPA Method 7199); and
• 17 CAM metals (EPA Method 6000/7000 series):
- antimony (EPA Method 601 OB);
- arsenic (EPA Method 200.8);
- barium (EPA Method 601 OB);
- beryllium (EPA Method 60108);
- cadmium (EPA Method 6010B);
- chromium (EPA Method 6010B);
- cobalt (EPA Method 601 OB);
- copper (EPA Method 6010B);
lead (EPA Method 601 OB);
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 2 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
- mercury (EPA Method 7470A);
Molybdenum (EPA Method 200.8)
nickel (EPA Method 6010B);
- selenium (EPA Method 601 OB);
- silver (EPA Method 60108);
- thallium (EPA Method 601 OB);
- vanadium (EPA Method 601 OB); and
- zinc (EPA Method 601 OB).
• ph (EPA Method 9045C)
• Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits - ASTM D 4318)
• Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829)
• Sudden Oak Death Fungi Testing
• Valley Fever fungus Testing
e. Additional requirements
i. Maximum Detection Limits (MDL's) shall be included in lab reports for tests 8081, 8082 and 8270. MDL's shall be at or below the Environmental Screening Limits (ESL's) shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
ii. If a CAM-17 TTLC test result is ten (10) times greater than its Table 2 value, BSP requires an STLC test to be submitted to determine soluble concentration. Results must be less than the STLC ESL's shown in Table 2 to be accepted. iii. pH results that are less than 5 or greater than 10 may result in higher dump fees. iv. Chain of Custody form to state if sample is a composite and the ratio ( e.g., 1 :2 or 4: 1 ).

BSP does not accept composites greater than 4:1.

5. Review Process
a. Submit SIF and Test Results from an ELAP certified laboratory for BSP review via email to:
[email protected]
b. Material Review Notes:
i. Summary tables are useful to facilitate review, but actual lab reports are required to confimi values.
ii. If uBackground" value in Table 1 is shown, the higher value between Background value and ESL shall be used to determine acceptance.
c. If the materials are deemed acceptable, BSP will issue a unique project ID number, Purchase Order and Soil Acceptance Letter stating conditions of approval including maximum import volume limit.
d. BSP will reply via email if the materials are unacceptable, or if corrective action is required to properly determine material acceptance.

ALTERNATIVE: At the sole discretion of BSP, materials may be imported into BSP's Material Containment Area (MCA) prior to approval provided that the Source Generator submits a letter acknowledging: (1) they are the Generator and (2) responsible for all associated cost should the materials received by the Generator are found to be unacceptable. The Letter shall be accompanied with preliminary test information sufficient for BSP to detemiine if materials can be imported into the MCA. All materials imported into the MCA are subject to confirmation testing by BSP at additional costs to the Generator, or as mutually agreed to by BSP and the Generator.

BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 3 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Table 1 Notes:

Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
Table 1
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)
For
Imported Materials
" -- "not applicable or not available; " mg/kg "milligrams per kilogram If background value is available, the higher value between background and ESL shall be used. * ESL not available; USE PA Risk-Based Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) for the protection of groundwater were used (4).

References:
(1) Background Metals Concentrations in Soil in Northern Santa Clara County (Scott, 1995} (2} Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in the Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL June 2002, Revised April 2009)
(3) All proposed concentrations are from California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (CRWQCB). Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Interim Final. rev June 2016. Minimum ESL between GW protection and Direct contact for soils< 3 meters below ground surface unless highlighted in red.
(4) USEPA. 2011. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs} for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. (5} 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the Mean Concentration for Benzo(a)pyrene equivalents from Use of the Northern and Southern California Polynuciear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Studies in the Manufactured Gas Plant Site Cleanup Process Draft for Public Comment - Cal-EPA May 8, 2009
(6} SF RWQCB Letter dated 9/14/17 regarding Concurrence with Proposed Revisions to the Baylands Soil Processing Acceptance Criteria, Brisbane Landfill. San Mateo County (7) SF RWQCB correspondence dated 10/23/17 regarding Concurrence with Proposed Revisions to the Baylands Soil Processing Acceptance Criteria, Brisbane Landfill, San Mateo County BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 4 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
Table 1
Background BSP ESL
Chemical
(mg/kg) <
1> (mg/kg) (
3l
lnorganics
Antimony 22 31
Arsenic <
1J 11 11
Barium (
2) 410 3000
Beryllium 3.2 42
Cadmium 14 39
Chromium 170 120,000
Chromium VI - 0.3
Cobalt <
2 l 25 25
Copper 67 3,100
Lead <
2J 54 80
Mercury 1.3 13
Molybdenum (
2l 4.8 390
Nickel 145 150
Selenium (
2l 4.9 390
Silver 4.8 390
Thallium 3.8 3.8
Vanadium <
2l 90 390
Zinc 120 23,000
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 5 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
PAH's
Background BSP ESL
Chemical (mg/kg) • (mg/kg) (3)
Acenaphthene - 1.6
Acenaphthylene - 13
Anthracene - 2.8
Benzo[ a ]anthracene - 0.16
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.4 (5) 0.4
Benzo[b}fluoranthene - 0.16
Benzo[g, h, i]perylene - 2.5
Benzo[k]fluoranthene - 1.6
Chrysene - 3.8
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene - 0.016
Fluoranthene - 60
Fluorene - 8.9
lndeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene - 0.16
Methylnaphthalene, 2 - 0.25
Naphthalene - 0.03
Phenanthrene - 11
Pyrene - 85
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 6 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
Background BSP ESL
Chemical
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)C3l
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD - 2.7
4,4'-DDE - 1.9
4,4'-DDT - 1.9
Aldrin 0.036
Aroclor 1248 - 0.23
Aroclor 1254 - 0.24
Aroclor 1260 - 0.24
Chlordane - 0.48
Dieldrin 0.002(6) 0.002
Endosulfan I 0.0046
Endosulfan II 0.0046
Endosulfan sulfate 0.0046
Endrin 0.002(6) 0.002
Endrin aldehyde 0.002(6) 0.002
Endrin ketone 0.002(6) 0.002
Heptachlor 0.002(6) 0.002
Heptachlor epoxide 0.002(6) 0.002
Lindane - 0.0098
Methoxychlor - 19
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 7 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
SVOCs
Background BSP ESL
Chemical
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (3l
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol - 0.21
2,4-Dichlorophenol - 0.3
2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13(7) 0.0018
Benzoic Acid 34*
Bis{2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate - 39
Butyl-benzyl-phthalate 0.51*
Diethyl phthalate - 0.035
Dimethyl Phthalate - 0.035
Hexachlorobutad iene 0.68
Hexachloroethane - 1.1
Phenol - 0.076
TPH

BSP ESL
Chemical
(mg/kg) (
3l
TPH Gasoline (GRO) C6 -C10 100
TPH Diesel (DRO) C11- C28 230
TPH Motor oil C23-C36 5,100
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 8 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
Background Chemical (mg/kg)
voes
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane -
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane -
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane -
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane -
1, 1-Dichloroethane -
1, 1-Dichloroethylene -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene -
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane -
1 ,2-Dibromoethane 0.004(6)
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene -
1,2-Dichloroethane -
1,2-Dichloropropane -
1,3,5-Trimelhylbenzene
1,3-Dichloropropene -
1,4-Dichlorobenzene -
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Chlorotoluene
4-lsopropy1toluene (p-cymene)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) -
Acetone -
BSP Environmental and Geolechnie<1I Submittal Guidelines

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (3l

0.01 7.8

0.018

0.07 0.2

0.55 1.5

0.081

0.0045

0.00033

1.6 0.0045

0.12 0.087"

0.059

0.59 0.25*

0.23 1.1 *

2.8 0.5

Page 9 of 12 ends

7.f
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
Benzene -
Bromodichlorom ethane -
Bromoform -
Bromomethane -
Butylbenzene, nCarbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride -
Chlorobenzene -
Chloroethane -
Chloroform -
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) -
Dibromochlorom ethane -
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2 -
Background
Chemical
(mg/kg)
voes
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2 -
Ethylbenzene -
Methyl ethyl ketone {2-butanone) -
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE} -
Methylene chloride -
Naphthalene -
Propylbenzene, nBSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines

0.044

0.52 1.7

0.3 5.9*

0.24 0.048

1.5 1.1

0.68 2.9

3.8 0.19

BSP ESL
(mg/kg) (
3)
1 1.4

5.1 0.023

0.077

0.033

1.2

Page 10 of 12 ends

7.f
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
Styrene -
T etrachloroethylene -
Toluene -
Trichloroethylene -
Trich lorofl uoromethane
Vinyl chloride -
Xylene {total) -
Table 2
STLC Limits for Imported Materials
STLC
Chemical
(mg/L)
Antimony 15
Arsenic 5
Barium 100
Beryllium 0.8
Cadmium 1.0
Chromium 5
Cobalt 80
Copper 25
Lead 5
Mercury 0.2
Molybdenum 350
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines

1.5 0.42

2.9 0.46

0.838

0.008

2.3

Page 11 of 12 ends

7.f
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC
Submittal Guidelines for Imported Soil
20 1
5 7
24 250
BSP Environmental and Geotechnical Submittal Guidelines Page 12 of 12

7.f
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

EXHIBIT A

SOURCE INFORMATION FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: COMPLETE ALL AREAS OF FORM
WHEN COMPLETED, EMAIL TO: [email protected]
GENERATOR (Property'8oll OWi111j . .'.· .••, . 1
·11A1NCONTACT(lolllPlo)lct .......... _,tJ
Company: Company:

Address: Address:

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

Phone#: Mobile#:

Email:

Transporter Name (if different than Generator or Owner/ Representative):

AddreH: Phone#: Mobile#:

SITE INFORMATION
Project I Site Address:

Excavation Type: Classification: D Stockpile D Borrow Area/Mass Excavation Acreage:

General Property Classification: D Residential D Commercial D Industrial D Open Space {undeveloped) Current Land Use/ Site Operations:

Historical Site Information (prior use):

TESTING INFORMATION (include sample map for locations; if composite, state ratio per Chain of Custody form) Sample ID# Type of Sample: Sample ID# Type of Sample:

Sample ID# Type of Sample: Sample ID# Type of Sample:

Lab results shall be from ELAP accredited laboratory and accompanied with Chain of Custodv letter

SOIL & HAUL INFORMATION
Physical Description, e.g. wet, dry, sand, clay, debris contaminated, terrain, etc.:

Total Amount of Soil to be Removed (estimated cubic yards): Estimated# of truckloads:

Project Time Frame (for soil removal from site): Days Weeks Months Project Start/End dales (approx dates for soil removal): Start End Source Information Form Page 1 of2

7.f
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

EXHIBIT A
Soil Source Information Form

I certify that I understand that BSP and the landowner are relying on the information stated in this Form and other submitted documentation to make a determination of acceptance or rejection of Clean Soil, that the I and the Generator of the soil. severally and jointly, agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless BSP and landowner with respect to the presence of contaminants in the materials in excess of unrestricted Environmental Screening Levels and/or any misrepresentation in the Certification and/or related documents.

7.f
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) October 20, 2023

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

PLANNING DIRECTOR

CITY OF PACIFICA I PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 73B-7341 I [email protected]
RE: Adaptive Management Plan
Mr. Murdock,
In this letter, Baylands Soil Pacifica has included an Adaptive Management Plan ("AMP") which we propose to incorporate into the project. The AMP provides a structure for the City and Baylands Pacifica to meet, discuss, and address challenges and opportunities throughout the duration of the Reclamation project.

Adaptive Management Plan for Quarry Reclamation Proiect {10/12/2023} Purpose
The purpose of this Adaptive Management Plan is to establish a framework for regular communication and collaborative decision-making between Baylands Soil Pacifica and the City of Pacifica. The meetings aim to review and address various aspects of the quarry reclamation project, ensuring that it aligns with agreed-upon standards, timelines, and community interests.

Frequency and Location of Meetings
Meetings will be held monthly during the course of the project. Given current circumstances and the need for flexibility, these meetings can be conducted on-site or over Zoom, as deemed appropriate.

Agenda Items

1. Traffic Management
• Review of current traffic patterns, volume, and any related complaints • Discussion of upcoming project phases and potential impact on local traffic • Recommendations for mitigations or adjustments

2. Multi-Purpose Trail Condition
• Status update on the condition of the multi-purpose
• Any maintenance or safety concerns

7.f
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) e ~-~~~~~~,~~~IFICA

3. Import Soll Documentation
• Review of imported soil volumes
• Verification of environmental and geotechnical documentation • Compliance checks and corrective actions, if needed

4. On-Site Issues
• Review of Dust Monitoring and Control Documentation
• Review of any reported on-site problems
• Discussion on resolution strategies
• Trmeline for implementation of resolutions
Meet;na Minutes
To ensure that all discussions, decisions, and actions are adequately documented, minutes of each meeting will be taken and shared with all attendees within a week following the meeting.

Attendance
Representatives from both Baylands Soil Pacifica and the City of Pacifica should attend the meeting. Additional stakeholders may be invited as necessary.

Sincere!~
Billy Gilmartin

7.f
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) PflEl.f,OINAAf

CQNCB'T
~
LllJSTRAllNG

IEIXJCS)FU
a-THE
CE\B..Of'MEHT ~- ct<THE
FUN
FtGl,fE: 4-7

7.f
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
August 7, 2024
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
Stefanie Cervantes, Interim Deputy Director
Planning Department
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation Plan - File No. 2016-001 425 :MARKET STREET
SurrE2900
SANfRANC!SCO, CA 94105
415.227 .D900 PHONE
415.227.0770 FAX
415.227.3508 Direct
ag uerra@bu chalter. com
Supplemental Information in Support of June 28, 2004 Letter Outlining Approach to Reduce Imported Fill to Reclaim Rockaway Quarry
Dear Kavitha and Stefanie:

As you know, Buchalter, APC, represents The Preserve@ Pacifica, LLC ('The Preserve") and Baylands Soil Pacifica, LLC ("Bay lands") regarding the land use approvals for reclamation of the Rockaway Quany in the City of Pacifica ("Pacifica"). Bay lands is processing a reclamation plan ("Reclamation Plan") at The Preserve's request to reclaim the Rockaway Quarry (the "Quarry Site" or "Quarry Pit"). The purpose of this letter is to supplement our June 28, 2024 regarding "Rockaway Quarry Site Reclamation Plan -File No. 2016-001 ("June 28th Letter") to explain how The Preserve and-Baylands approached the reclamation effort with an objective of further lessening the amount of imported fill associated with reclamation of the Rockaway Quarry Site. The June 28th Letter and prior Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan submittals for the reclamation of the Quarry Site associated with File No. 2016-001 are hereby incorporated by reference.

My clients do not have any plans for development of the Rockaway Quarry property.

Baylands Soil Pacifica has plans to reclaim the Quarry Site on The Preserve at Pacifica's behalf.

My clients outlined The Preserve at Pacifica's strategy at the May 2024 Planning Commission Study Session to start reclamation while my client would engage in a planning process with the City of Pacifica to determine what future development could look like. We submitted a letter on June 28, 2024 ("June 28th Letter") that further explained the strategy to use the Rockaway BN 83942544v3
bu cha lter.com losAn&ei<>
Dcnvor
Nat>o \/alley
l'fash'lo'ill.e
OrJngc Cctinty
PorU.lnd
S..-r-rimP.nto
Sa.It L.atc-e Cit~
San l)lt'f,O
S;w• F r,md<;ro
Soott>dale
Scartl~

7.f
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
August 7, 2024

Page 2 ends

Quarry Reclamation Plan Draft EIR's Reduced Fill Alternative to show how starting reclamation of the Quarry Site could provide time for the City and The Preserve at Pacifica to engage in a planning process while further reducing the amount of impotted fill needed for reclamation. This letter supplements the narrative provided in our June 28th Letter. This letter further describes the Reduced Fill Alternative parameters that focus on substituting imported fill with flat pads in an area identified in the Pacifica General Plan Land Use Map Figure 4-7 for the future use following reclamation consistent with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA").

Rockaway Quarry EIR Reduced FiU Alternative Description The Reduced Fill Alternative described on Draft EIR pages 6-18 to 6-21 contemplated that the Reclamation Plan would be designed to use the minimum amount of fill in the Quarry Pit to meet SMARA requirements but the Draft ElR did not specify a specific amount. The Draft ElR Reduced Fill Alternative was designed to meet the basic project objectives including reclamation to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. While the minimum fill would alter lhe amount of fill within the Quarry Pit, the alternative would still complete the remaining reclamation activities proposed under the proposed 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.

Even though development is not proposed as an element of the Reclamation Plan as we explained at the Study Session and in our May 9, 2024 and June 28th letters, the Reclamation Plan still needs to anticipate how to adapt the Quarry Site to allow future development in order to comply with SMARA. Consequently, Walsh Engineering used the Draft EIR's Reduced Fill Alternative framework to further clarify the lowest amount of imported fill that would be needed to reclaim the Quarry Site consistent with SMARA.

Development Pad with Reduced Fill Option
To further clarify the potential options for a Reduced Fill Alternative, we evaluated prior reclamation plan efforts for the Rockaway Quarry since 1996 to detennine the amount of imported fill under each prior plan and document whether or not the prior reclamation plan satisfied S:MARA criteria in addition to other project criteria, as shown in the attached Table 1, Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Comparison. Walsh Engineering compared a Reduced Fill Alternative as further defined in the Walsh Engineering Concept Site Plan dated June 28, 2024 and attached to our June 28th Letter to the other prior proposed and/or approved reclamation plans considered for the Quarry Site.

BN ~3942544v3

7.f
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
August 7, 2024

Page 3 ends

Section 2773 ofSMARA states:
"(a) The reclamation plan shall be applicable to a specific piece of property or properties, shall be based upon the character of 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 shall establish site-specific criteria for evaluating compliance with the approved reclamation plan, including topography, revegetation and sediment, and erosion control." SMARA Section 2773 also provides that:
"(b) These standards shall apply to each mining operation, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the planned or actual subsequent use or uses of the mining site." These SMARA provisions set the framework for assessing a reclamation plan option that contemplates reclaiming the site to a flat development pad as a planned use in lieu of reclamation to a hillside topography with no development (e.g., open space) as an actual subsequent use.

Because the Project is a reclamation project and no development is proposed, and a development project has not been approved for the Quarry Site (despite prior attempts at development over several decades), Walsh Engineering referred to the Pacifica General Plan's land use designation and Pacifica zoning on the Quarry Site to define the approved allowable end uses to meet SMARA 's requirement. In this regard, the General Plan has designated commercial and residential uses on the project site since 1983. The General Plan currently designates the Quarry Site Special Area. The site is zoned Visitor Serving Commercial. Most of the permitted uses would require a relatively flat pad or terraced pads. Building such a pad would reduce the amount of fill required to about 653,000 cubic yards as explained in the June 21, 2024 Walsh Engineering Memorandum, Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Technical Responses to Items Noted in the May 20, 2024 City Study Session attached to our June 28th Letter ("Walsh Memorandum").

The surrounding topography imposes a physical constraint in generating fill on site. Our June 281
h letter and associated Exhibits summarized the engineering associated with generating fill material on site to fill the quarry. The reduced amount of fill associated with flat development pads does not rely on any specific type of development based on zoning.

Regardless of the type of development, the reduced quantity fills the Quarry floor to a pad elevation of85 feet and extends a 2:1 fill slope up 50 feet higher than the pad to the 135 foot elevation contour to restore the Quarry face. This confonns with SMARA while resulting in an estimated 5 acres of land area that could be developed with General Plan land uses in the future as explained in our June 28, 2024 Letter.

BN 83942544v3

7.f
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
August 7, 2024
Page4
Exhibit A contains two exhibits depicting the existing topography that imposes the physical constraints influencing reclamation of the Quarry Site. Walsh Engineering has prepared the attached Exhibit A.1 displaying the aerial imagery of the site overlaid with the Reduced Fill Option which indicates the critical elevation of 135 foot contour at the Quarry face and the observable erosion and instability of the areas below the 135 foot elevation. Visible trails can also be seen above the erosion and unstable areas. Walsh Engineering has also prepared the attached Exhibit A.2 as a side by side comparison of the reduced fill concept reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan and the previously submitted further clarification and refinements of the proposed project. The creation of the flat pad and factors shown in Exhibit A.2 result in a substantial reduction of fill for the project compared to the 9/1/2023 Revised Project Reclamation Plan.

My client needs to fill the quarry pit and grade the site to restore wetlands and habitat as part ofreclamation. It takes approximately 653,000 cubic yards of fill (583,000 cubic yards of which is imported fill), to do that even with a future effort to implement development as reclamation proceeds. Without the ability to replace dirt with foundations, reclaiming the Rockaway Quarry requires a lot more dirt as demonstrated by the proposed 2023 Reclamation Plan. The reason is that the amount of fill needed to fill the quarry is driven by the existing topography and not by the type of development that may someday be developed on the Property.

We have prepared the attached summary to explain how reclamation reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fill Alternative would satisfy the SMARA findings and the City's Municipal Code Section 9-2.07. In conjunction with the findings for the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fill Alternative, we are submitting responses from WRA, the project biologist addressing comments from the Coastal Commission related to the Reduced Fill Alternative.

Next Steps
As my client stated at the May 20, 2024 Study Session and we reiterated in our June 28!b Letter, The Preserve at Pacifica would be in support of an approach whereby the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Draft EIR Reduced Fill Alternative for the Reclamation Plan consisting ofup to approximately 583,000 cubic yards as the maximum HN 83942544v3

7.f
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Buchalter
Kavitha Kumar; Interim Planning Director
August 7, 2024

Page 5 ends

amount of imported fill to reclaim the Quarry Site subject to compliance with SM ARA. Our proposed strategy for clarifying further the Draft EIR's Reduced Fill Alternative is to proceed with reclamation to provide time for the City and The Preserve at Pacifica to engage in a planning process to detennine what future development could look like.

AG:nj
Attachments
cc: Michelle Kenyon
Karen Murphy
Kevin Woodhouse
Paul Heule
Billy Gilmartin
Matt Walsh
BN 83~42544v3
Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
t3J--
Alicia Guerra

7.f
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) , ,
-("
- ,/ .....,., /
;;:,;ir1~
- ;11 l . ,,,. ~
-, ~~ ~~-~---.. -- -~--""'
-· _, .. ,..,_,_
&l'JbO± CJIMtAOf:jf(flf)
•-----'
__
,...._------ _,..oi,n,:u,
~--v-.-.
_:! '3 ... ~-
L..:...____,::J ·'' -~-___ ,
/ ~::-==
/ . """''"'-
~~':,:o"'.:;:;.,,,.~.....,--.,..:.,.,, ..
1-..--• ... o.-allOCHJl'l[k)~'IC!tlJ
€-L>."5--~ ,....~,x,,.,..••...:r"*
O)~ .. ~----.-IV
,. c.:-- _____ .. , ..,i,,_.., _ __
.:,_....... ___ ,.,. ....,, .. ~
c:;:.----.......... .. .... U<I
~-,.,. .. , ........... .... aQ:OIALl'Plsfl ---· '" _,,. __ _,...,,..,.,..,,.,,..,1, I,~~~
• _,...,looCIMO>.K~:..,,,,..,~ ---..
•• ..-.s-,0':H""°' ___ _..,.._
-
CCHC:e'T
FUN
IJ.1LBlRA71NG
FEOLaDR.L OFTl1E oe,s.°"8rr
,DJE:A!:1-lOWN
ctlTl1E PUN
FkUE:4-7
'Mrn--
f'!t:lTO
IHCTA710NS / ===~="'>£
. , ... < ,",/ .,.,..,_ 1-@;.'.$~!,,t:
.:.~g :~~:;:-~~=::: EXH A.1 r '- - aw <c <+l'rl<c ·""• .. =-- - ~--,,..,~~~;.,,'~""

7.f
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) FUiilTKU~ (LAJlll'll;ATlONS Mt' ~mN[MDIJSO~ P~OPOY:0 PAOJ.1:<T [9/}{1023 N . .A)I SU8MIITAI.) lm4..IC.El>f!l.l (ONal'T OF Tl:IE PROPOSED PROJECT [&/).1/,i!Ql( SJJ 8M ITTIIII.I +874,000 CY (FILL) +583,000 CY (FILL)
Narrative Des i:ript/Qn of Furttier Cl arific:ations and Refinements of Proposei:I Project ■ L:R~.U. MWK 511:::j IORAnDN i,'tE\lOWS~fmKil; SMAR,l SKdo!, UllJ[bJ& le) outl~n~ chi-~,,;I 1oir -.,.m,r qllilllt,,i 1nd -titnhN<omt<II. Thlo Pl'011oMtool proj,Kt. 1<1u·-,,...11a■ u~ ..... ..I C:..iiior■ C'n'l'k i,yj111;c,l"Jlo•.1t1n1 ; 1:.1. ~lopotlll ~• a ft;b/,., 1,,1,pf.nd w,d [mpr~ 'l'n'btfll1fll ogrrtr,;il whlk-ooiweyl~ ~ace ruootfl.:Jo n.itlll.il a,~lrU!l)I: .:au,1ot::1. Tlv .-Nlu.:t.:I ffll cr.,iu:ftt ti..s ,tdund IJ,~ ...-.,"l'C n{ li.. t1~t.\lplwid re~rnhm .b<f lo-,(1)1 tn111r~,el 1M t.,po).f ,~ .. pJ,,,n""-= t,;, .mi.,""'~ 1!1-J,t f",1111'1 ~t"al:tm nf n ' :;i,nd ttt1uc1115 th! wtrNII .sl the 2!3.sla-p~ ~ l'tel'IN:1tft'fl5 In.; rd11£'1:1tlfto .sl 1111. +· ➔ ~MA.IU :>ertlon27ll[cl sb'lti tlut ~ 11,1r,,;uyollJ1oeciH Qr 1M Ad n ~ ..timl....w -i•u~I h.ounh Ta pJ,licl,-'lli ~1■11 nf,ty, Th'l' Tf1'11\I~ flllu,,-pt,.~lntill'N ; pJt,,,~111 nw.-.1 .. lt a,: AD-A ,;,;;impllam .p,eos .-,,! ,11.-.;Mdeiaoce~ korem~~qowlll'l!ID u .. u .......... 1M4$t\l. 11'1 ~¢MIOl'lllr'll'lt ~,9H\11Pffl\i,~IIJ4J""":l\lrll~ [i'l:lrh\lrw ko bh,1ff,dl"'-!, SklsrH a-dJ;iurrttr. p,;r:lt15tlwt;re2:l 1111 i.i,,.,~infw,,..~ )amf~r """3. Theip-adeh11 bee11 M~1nu1r,e.i ... 1 .. ,. It,,., ,ofl;l):ot tt4-i:111-(~d tt'"1fnr; and pa~ M,tottnN-di,,;:,d ~ nolM'r S" Mtlle .__rtyrur." aftl!e-pat:11 to> m;brt ~GCll"lli.1• ,..t■,; .... 1..., ~,.•lt1r-c (n 1 ~ttlcon<:ol fill. • l(lf>G-~AHl'I' il,,Nl)~CfES. iijut,:...-,:Dolloli,.. SM ARA S..c1_,,, ~04ld11•, .all~ dl,pes; ,~I coo form Mlh the: s11mt..-idln~ Wp,:,rr,rpt!y arrd/Cflf -~ed otlll! \ISie.. n,, JINIF-4Wd pr.t>f--=, NM'-0/Uci'!ol-la nit,;, ~nfg,rn wi1ti tt,, wrrlMlndlns;tr.~~.-, L,y ...,1"11 ~ J.:1 ~1.., .. I C..M"oo<..,.,k whlr::lt,crNto!~ • nrt\lr11cru• upland1 and brlnp tlM: p;ride \lj>ID 1n~advn tnat blotn1h wtth. lt-oa a!ll1tfrC Soll'lhlm l!lidr. SMAA,!, N<.1ii:m ~l.o.Q(,I) "'i.t:ibl1"1nh11,11ioMllr,e tn~ :Z:1 ls .I l'l'IIIIOVil.lftl ·•Pfltl-t G.f l~pt. n. m~M tlll~ncevi hn~WffR-iltht fill ~n frora.a.n ..-.e:r;ice tie-utllll'lof ll(I feet c1 .. wn ,., ; 11.n p;cl etN.a1ron otre.s ft::SL.cltlu(I" • ~....,:1191.,1 2S' 1"'1 Ml1ht c,f f!ll 1M1.a""niff .Mn!& 'lhl ~~•,Y Pil, .....,t.:,,, 1,u "°""reu,.,. t,;, ■- L..o-v~N:'fl,.ttlcon ,;,f t.l for r,:,;larnrtk191. "~ srg,r :JI tfii !.ai;t .. .inkl1 nwirn,;,1r ec1,a- ~1,,lld\1:i'■t gi,.Mn n,u:.u,yfor -11\,11Pw c,11111 .. r ••"usibDfty. TI-c .£;1 sla,pe bli:nd,; ff...-,, ti ... F.,.,, A,,o,., ~n4 .. dr....:1~ ... 1..-ic: 11,, H,er..bi!rf. bl thoe-S...udlem !!-luff. 'Tl,e rt:d\loed flll wnlll'pt lrKOrpo~.., n~'M 2:! slope .:lo'M1 the q.11.inyU.c:. tro..i l;IM, U5" •i...~rlau Wn'lalr .ta.....,.to tt>r pul e!ft';iGcon al H. Tflll n>n01:pt ,,..... 1/i,Jllt~IIQ~ ~ Hlllflltt'i~ 'Wftlt, SM.P.11.A Se,rtia,n !~71l1)lltl 111 re-cblm ~ Jlte ta I f\;atcl~ijelapmentpad .i.s .osrl~\lseln llu,1 al ru!,mt.lllt!I~ ,., ~ 1'1111:.id~ lop<>CNl'~Y ol nci dn~lo pm-ent :e "'"' actu.i,lsubs~qµc,nt 11~. - ------ --------
E»ll81T A.2; COMPARISON OF FUR™ ER CLARIFICATIONS AND REFINEMENTS OF PROPOSl'D PROJECT V5. REDUCED FIU CONCEPT or TllE PROPOSED PROJECT 8/7/2J!24

7.f
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Descriptions
The following descriptions refer to reclamation plans identified in Table 1: Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan Comparison.
10/28/1996 Reclamation Plan: This plan called for reclamation of all disturbed mined lands, eliminated eroded and unvegetated mined lands, eliminated slopes steeper than 2:1, and removed eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety. The grading includes 1,414,400 cubic yards of earthwork with 707,200 cubic yards of cut removed from the main face with excavation depths up to 60 feet to establish slopes at 2:1 as well as cutting down of the southern bluff. The material removed was to be placed as 707,200 cubic yards of fill to establish a developable flat pad at an elevation of 85 at the quarry pit in addition to a developable flat pad at the eastern flank at an elevation of 75. The slopes established by this plan would have been steeper than the nearby hillside topography. 1/22/2016 Reclamation Plan: This plan did not include coverage of all disturbed mined lands, did not eliminate eroded mined areas, and did not mitigate eroded slopes adjacent to trails. It left mined slopes at the quarry face in place that were steeper than 2:1. The grading includes 216,000 cubic yard of earthwork including 108,300 cubic yards of cut from the hilltop to establish a 2: 1 slope, removal of a portion of the southern bluff, established a 2:1 slope eastward of the southern bluff sloping down to a d evelopable flat pad established by 107,700 cubic yards of fill at the quarry pit to raise it to an elevation of 50. The plan left the steep quarry face un-reclaimed. The slopes established by this plan would have been steeper than the nearby hillside topography and buildings were anticipated in conjunction with this plan.
4/5/2023 Reclamation Plan: This plan calls for reclamation of all disturbed mined lands, eliminated eroded and unvegetated mined lands, eliminated slopes steeper than 2:1, and removed eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety. The grading includes 1,140,000 total cubic yards of earthwork with 85,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope. It preserves the southern bluff at its current elevation white bringing 970,000 cubic yards of fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and fills the quarry pit across to the main face up to an elevation of 150. The slopes established by this plan conform to the surrounding topography and are consistent with a natural open space hillside relevant to pre-mining conditions. There is no development proposed with this plan and no flat pads are created.
9/1/2023 Reclamation Plan: This plan calls for reclamation of all disturbed mined lands, eliminated eroded and unvegetated mined lands, eliminated slopes steeper than 2:1, and removed eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety. The grading includes 1,014,000 total cubic yards of earthwork with 70,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3:1 slope. It preserves the southern bluff at its current elevation while bringing 874,000 cubic yards of fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and fills the quarry pit across to the main face up to an elevation of 135, which was identified as a critical elevation at the quarry face where unvegetated soils have eroded adjacent to active trails. It also provides for an ADA accessible path connecting the multi-use trail across to the northwesterly overlook point of the bluff. The slopes established by this plan conform to the surrounding topography and are consistent with a natural open space hillside relevant to pre-mining conditions. There is no development proposed with this plan and no flat pads are created.
1 7.f
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 6/28/2024 Reduced Fill Alternative Reclamation Concept: This concept calls for reclamation of all disturbed mined lands, eliminates eroded and unvegetated mined lands, eliminates slopes steeper than 2:1, and removes eroded slopes adjacent to trails for safety. The grading includes 723,000 total cubic yards of earthwork with 70,000 cubic yards of cut from grading the hilltop to a 3: 1 slope. It preserves the southern bluff at its current elevation while bringing 583,000 cubic yards of fill to establish a natural uplands area adjacent to the creek and fills the quarry pit up to a flat pad elevation of 85. The grading establishes a 2:1 fill slope extending from the flat pad up the quarry face at an elevation of 135, which was identified as a critical elevation at the quarry face where unvegetated soils have eroded adjacent to active trails. It also provides for an ADA accessible path connecting the multi-use trail across to the northwesterly overlook point of the bluff. The slopes established by this plan are steeper than the nearby hillside topography and this plan would allow a flat developable pad for future buildings. The plan allows for less imported fill due to the intended end use of development which will provide spoils from excavations of building footings and future paving areas to be placed as fill to establish terraced development that steps up in elevation as the buildings get closer to the quarry face. The use of future spoils as fills and terracing future development will intentionally create an appearance consistent with typical development seen in Hillside Preservation Districts. Future building heights would also screen the 2:1 slope at the quarry face to soften the appearance and meet SMARA objectives. 2 7.f
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Table- 1: R<Jcbwa~Ol.l•rry Fbtd&1TN1lon Phm C4Jl'lplftson A-&elarnation
flanY&ar
10f25.f'Ul96
11'22'2l16
9/H:2023
mo•
Cc,,..:;:;ig111 er
all dlftlft,,&d
Ml~dl:IM'l?
Yoo
""
Yo,
y,.
2770,
Elirrin~
eroded and
SWA.RA. Rl!ICIUIJ'efflllntB
2712 ,c 2:712 f,;J
51-::pos -.iop,;,r
~n 2:1 and
rritig.l~
1,.1nvi,g,:Q1Ctd croiietl 11~-.:
mir.d aN1.i,i? adjaeo:nl b
f>,"(l.,,,idatrail
ltliil!is.r,,011.
~liblc'/'
No
v ..
t'11I1a1Cif'
63:1&1:)1~
y,.

No
No
'.!7D4 o!II 2712 (.al
No v .. v ..
v ..
81:ao'llr.;i,
He.-nmeriri,a,
""'"'" CMhing
rtoW"ed~
m:aj:lrityof
,.,r-tw,,;ut?
v ..

No
Appmvad
H'o1,;~for
Blla:ei1i~
NIA
Thl'.I N;;.~n;i,I ln~rr.c fcir Dcz:u?3~ r..:!11 S:!ife~• ~r.d H"o!113ll", [NI05H} l)".-::vld&9 'ltl8 tol1etw;.~g {:uidaf'IC9 l'.ln exp,o&urt to nor.ii livd:r; ..,i'ttq,,r,-;iri.,~ 1--=.:iring pob:idM Nois11, Level dBA Maximum 5!99!!.YIJ! Time
a5 CIBA ~
88 i:IBA 4 nours
tl1 clBA 2Mu~
~ 1 hour
97 dB A JO lllin utes
1iiooBA
~
J..a..miilJdo>.
7 . .5 minutes
106dBA ~-' minutes 109
tn=1ts
0 BA
.. ~
~
1 e;z:;qttiJo 1 minute 121-12• d8A L.@!isth.an 10 secooczs 127dBA ~~Q..~ lli-140 dB~ 1 us mau 1 sewod 140+ dBA NO EXPOSURE TIME ;IJ'lte1stiotl or pairl) Bl.rthw;irb
Min Fill-::-,oi
100 160 1,414.4CD+ 7-07,200 NIM O
1::0 160 21'1:1,DQD 105,300 ,m:roo eoorui
NIA 1.140.D□D 85,000 1.,Q:55,ooa 97 .0GOftll
NIA 1,014,000 70.000 944.0CO 8741XJJR:1
NIA NIA Tn/X,Q i0.000

7.f
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

ROCKAWAY QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN
JUNE 28, 2024 CONCEPT SITE PLAN

FOR THE REDUCED FILL ALTERNATIVE

SMARA FINDINGS
Background Regarding Further Clarifications to Reduced Fill Alternative The Draft EIR for the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan described a Reduced Fill Alternative. This alternative contemplated that the Reclamation Plan would be designed to use the minimum amount of fill to meet Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements but the Draft EIR did not specify a specific amount. The Draft EIR Reduced Fill Alternative was designed to meet the basic project objectives including reclamation to a usable condition, which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. Even though development is not proposed as an element of the Reclamation Plan, the Reclamation Plan still needs to anticipate how to adapt the Quarry Site to allow future development in order to comply with SMARA.

The Preserve at Pacifica/Baylands Soil Pacifica needs to fill the quarry pit and grade the site to restore wetlands and habitat as part of reclamation. It takes approximately 653,000 cubic yards of fill (583,000 cubic yards or which is imported fill), to do that even with a future effort to implement development as reclamation proceeds (referred to as the "Reduced Fill Alternative").

Without the ability to replace dirt with foundations, reclaiming the Rockaway Quarry requires a lot more dirt as demonstrated by the proposed 2023 Reclamation Plan. The reason is that the amount of fill needed to fill the quarry is driven by the existing topography and not by the type of development that may someday be developed on the Property.

The property owner and applicant are willing to consider sequencing reclamation so that less fill is needed under the Reduced Fill Alternative to reclaim the quarry while the property owner and Cily engage in a specific plan process for a future development effort consistent with the Pacifica General Plan. The following explains how the Reduced Fill Alternative as reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan meets the findings required under SMARA and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code for the approval of a reclamation plan for the City of Pacifica's consideration. The findings below adapt the City of Pacifica's original findings for the Proposed Revised Reclamation Plan dated 9/1/2023 to the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan.

SMARA Findings as applied to the Applicant's Further Clarifications Reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fill Alternative The Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan is subject to the requirements established in the 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; 1 7.f
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 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.

The Rockaway Quarry Project Reduced Fill Alternative as reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan is consistent with SMARA Sections 2772 or 2773, and the applicable requirements of State regulations (14 CCR Sections 3500-3505 and 3700-3713) as implemenled through the Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-2.07.

SMARA Section 2773 is useful in understanding the significance of the surrounding area topography, while also referring to the consistency of the end uses, when reaching a determination that the June 20, 2024 Concept Site Plan meets the applicable SMARA findings.

With respect to the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fill Alternative, reclamation requires more fill to match existing topography contours for no development versus less fill is needed to create a development pad consistent with the pad outlined in the General Plan Land Use Map Figure 4-7.
"SMARA Section 2773 states:
(a) The reclamation plan shall be applicable to a specific piece of property or properties, shall be based upon the character of the surrounding area and such characteristics of the property as type of as type of overburden, soil stability, topography, geology, climate, stream characteristics, and principal mineral commodities, and shall establish sitespecific criteria for evaluating compliance with the approved reclamation plan, including topography, rcvegetation and sediment, and erosion control.

SMARA Section furlher states that:
"These standards shall apply to each mining operation, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the planned or actual subsequent use or uses of the mining site." The Reduced Fill Alternative as further refined in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan would address adverse environmental effects and hazards to public health and safety presented by oversteep, un-reclaimed slopes that resulted from past mining activities based on a smaller footprint of disturbance to fill the quarry of approximately 5 acres. The June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fill Alternative would result in a reclaimed site that is adaptable for alternative land uses in the future in accordance with the Pacifica General Plan Land Use Map Figure 4-7 and would be consistent with the intent of SMARA.

Specifically, the Reduced Fill Alternative would be consistent with other technical requirements of SM ARA including but not limited to the following:

A. Section 3503(t): 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 2 7.f
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 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. Jt 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 more gradual slopes ranging from 5: 1 to 2: l. Rcvegetation is proposed across the newly graded areas. The Reduced Fill Alternative as implemented through the June 28, 2024 would not denude adjacent areas of the soil just as was the case with the proposed Reclamation Plan.

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 reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan similarly 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 and Game Code section 2050 et seq. Tf 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 Grune 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. As discussed in the Reduced Fill Alternative in the Draft EJR, it is not possible to entirely avoid wildlife habitat and man-made wetlands utilized by the identified species that have the potential to be present on the Project site. However, the Reduced Fill Alternative as implemented through the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan would restore affected wetlands in excess of 4: 1 replacement ratio, even though it would result in an approximate 10% reduction in impacts to wetlands compared to the Project evaluated in the Draft: EJR. Revegetation with appropriate local and native species wi\1 also help to restore appropriate wildlife habitat on the Project site. 3 7.f
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) D. Section 3704: Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability, and Recontouring. Backfilling, regrading, slope stabilization, and recontouring shall confonn 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 site-specific geologic and engineering analysis demonstrate that the proposed final slope will have a minimum slope stability factor of safety that is suitable for the proposed end use, and when the proposed final slope can be successfully revegetated.
(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. (t) 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 Revised Project would backfill slope areas in a manner consistent with the recommendations in the geotechnical report titled "Geotechnical Investigation Rockaway Quarry Reclamation, Pacifica, California", dated December 10, 2018, prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc., and peer reviewed by the City's CEQA consultant, ENGEO Incorporated, for purposes of an intended end use of open space, undeveloped land. All proposed final reclaimed fill slopes will equal to or less than 2: 1 slope.

Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-2.07 Findings
The Planning Commission may approve a reclamation plan only when making all of the following findings:
4 7.f
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) (1 )The June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fi II Alternative 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 Rockaway Quarry Project Reduced Fill Alternative is consistent with SMARA Sections 2772 or 2773, and the applicable requirements of State regulations (14 CCR Sections 3500-3505 and 3700-3713) as implemented through the Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-2.07. (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 arc mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

The reclamation plan as reflected in the Reduced Fill Alternative 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. All significant impacts associated with the Reduced Fill Alternative as reflected in the June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan would be less than those evaluated for the proposed reclamation plan in the Draft EIR and 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 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 Revised Project 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. Restore the Project site to pre-quarry conditions so that views of the Pacific Ocean are maintained in a manner supporting a future alternate use in accordance with SlvlARA and the Pacifica General Plan.

Grading the Project site to an approximate pre-mining appearance based on historical aerial imagery, revegctating the reclaimed slopes with native vegetation, and installing drainage improvements to manage future stormwater runoff and improve water quality, will all combine in the proposed reclamation plan to ensure that the reclaimed land will be compatible with the 5 7.f
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) surrounding natural environment, topography, and other resources, particularly the existing undeveloped condition at the adjacent Mori Point area to the north. ( 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 June 28, 2024 Concept Site Plan for the Reduced Fill Alternative 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 Concept Site Plan was prepared pursuant to SMARA and the City of Pacifica Surface Mining and Reclamation regulations (PMC Title 9, Chapter 2). The final condition of the Project site following completion of reclamation would be prepared for future end uses, with slopes ranging from 5:1 to 2:1, resulting in a Project site that would be readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code ( as noted above, the Project site is not included in the City's Certified Local Coastal Program because it is an area of deferred certification). The proposed reclamation is necessary to achieve the requirements of this finding because the Project site currently contains oversteep slopes that are not suitable for alternative land uses identified in the General Plan and Zoning Code. (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.

Comments from the State Department orConscrvation 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 Applicant revised the proposed reclamation plan in response to comments from the Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR), the part of the Department of Conservation responsible for reclamation plan review 6 7.f
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) August 6, 2024
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan, Response to July 30, 2024, CCC email to Stephanie Cervantes, City of Pacifica Dear Kavitha:

Thank you for sharing the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) July 30, 2024, request for additional information about the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Project. While the Reduced Fill Alternative in the DEIR was sufficient from a CEQA perspective, it was analyzed at a qualitative level of detail. However, we can use the recently submitted (July 2, 2024) concept site plan for the reduced fill alternative to answer these questions .
1) Explain if and how the Reduced Fill Alternative would change the grading ratios;
a} The July 2, 2024, reduced fill alternative contemplates 583,000 cy of imported fill. This is a 45% reduction of imported fill. In addition, 67,000 cy of material would be cut and moved on-site to complete reclamation under this alternative. This results in a total amount of fill in the pit of 653,000 cy. The proposed 67,000 cy of cut is the maximum amount of fill able to be 'harvested' onsite without requiring blasting rock and installing a rock crushing facility to generate material that is
geotechnically suitable for the final reclamation.
2) Clarify how much less fill would be placed in the quarry pit in the Reduced Fill Alternative;
a) The original Reclamation Plan proposed 1,055,000 cy of fill in the quarry pit to return the landform to near pre-mining conditions. The total amount of fill placed in the quarry pit in this reduced fill alternative is 653,000 cy, a 38% reduction of fill. Of the 653,000 cy of fill, 580,000 cy is imported fill (the remaining 67,000 cy is cut and balanced onsite). The reduced fill alternative reduces the amount of imported fill by 45%.

WRA, Inc. I 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CP._ 94901 www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868

7.f
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 3) Explain how the Reduced Fill Alternative would impact the existing wetlands and the proposed plan for wetland mitigation; and if reduced fill would lessen impacts to the existing wetlands; a} The reduced fill alternative does result in impacts to the lowquality, man-made wetlands and sediment basin in the quarry pit.

However, due to the reduced amount of fill, the amount of wetlands impacted are likely to be able to be reduced. In particular, the fill footprint can be pulled back and away from the creek and associated willows. We believe that impacts to a seasonal wetland in that area avoided. The exact amount of reduced impact can be calculated once this alternative has been refined after further vetting by the approving agencies. Any remaining wetland impacts will be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio as previously proposed and in the same location as previously proposed.
4) Analyze how the Reduced Fill Alternative would differ visually from the proposed preferred project and provide new visual simulations; a} The reduced fill alternative visually looks relatively similar to the original proposal, but there will be a_ slightly reduced footprint and a 5-acre relatively flat pad at elevation 85. There will be a 2:1 slope rising from the flat pad up to elevation 135 where it will meet with a stable portion of the existing quarry face. Additional fill will be placed above that face at roughly the 180 elevation contour and extend up to the hilltop (elevation 260) in a 2:1 slope on the east, but a more gradual 3:1 and 5:1 slope in the south and west, respectively.
5) Provide the estimate of greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled for the Reduced Fill Alternative, including a comparison to the proposed preferred project;
a) While these numbers have not been formally calculated for this reduced fill alternative, we can make some relative estimates.

The VMT will be reduced by a relative amount compared to the reduction in import - an approximately 45% reduction. Greenhouse gas emissions from the import will also be reduced significantly from the originally proposed Reclamation Plan. There will be ~45% reduction of GHG from the reduced import of fill, but there will be additional GHG output from the 67,000 cy of onsite cut/fill proposed to complete reclamation. Therefore, the reduction in GHG emissions will be between approximately 30-40% of the proposed Reclamation Plan.
6) Expand on how the proposed public access trails would be altered by the Reduced Fill Alternative, including specifics of which existing trails would remain with this alternative.
a) The reduced fill alternative proposes essentially the same public access design as the Reclamation Plan. Once the public trail crosses the bridge and enters the West Parcel, the trail splits with one fork going left, rising gently to an overlook while the other splits to the right and courses up the east side of the hill to connect with the existing trail at the 'hilltop'. This is WRA, Inc. I 2169-G East F~ancisco Blvd., San Rafael, C.~ 94901 www .wra-ca.com ph: 415.454.8868

7.f
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) consistent with the public access proposed in the Reclamation Plan,
Additionally, a few new questions/comments have come up for us during the review of the submittal, including:
7) Please clarify why a proposal for future development on the site would require less fill than if the Quarry remained open space. a) While the original Reclamation Plan proposal had a designated SMARA end use of Open Space, it also left the site in a manner that was usable for a variety of future uses. This configuration also aligned with the City's General Plan designation which allowed for 7.8 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial use on the West Parcel. The July 2, 2024, reduced fill alternative reduces the size of the pad that may be used for future uses on the West Parcel to 5 acres. The difference is less about end use designation and more about the amount of space usable for a variety of subsequent uses following reclamation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact our project team if you have any clarifying questions.

Sincerely,
Geoff Smick
Principal/CEO
WRA, Inc. I 2169-G East ?rancisco Blvd . , San Rafael, CA 94901 www wra-ca.com ph: 415.454.8868

7.f
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Attachment E Appeal by Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC [Revision 1] (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.g
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal)

7.g
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From:

Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 9:00 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: No dirt in the quarry ! Just vote No!
[CAUTION: External Email]
City Council,
I am firmly against Baylands Soil proposal to dump tons of dirt in the quarry. As a Pacifica ciƟzen, I alarmed that this is even being considered as it has been voted down before. Traffic, safety, and our fragile coastal environmental will be affected during and beyond the years of this project. Also, given the fact that the owners are felons and have paid off officials in the past makes this project seem even dirƟer! How can we trust them? Unscrupulous developers will happily dump their tainted soils in our ocean hamlet which will leach away forever chemicals for years and decades to come. This is NOT a “reclamaƟon“ project, just a sneaky way to make dirty money! Baylands Soil stands to make millions! Pacifica gets endless heavy truck traffic on already clogged roads and surely tainted soil. This is a dirty project, with no thought for the future of Pacifica and the will of voters. No dirt in the quarry! Kathleen Forbes
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Jeffrey Sinder
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: The Quarry Reclamation Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
To the Pacifica City Council,
Once again the public has spoken loudly and clearly that they do want this plan implemented. No yesterday, no today, no tomorrow. No.

Thank-you,
Jeffrey E. Sinder
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: LISA HERNANDEZ
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 12:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Quarry dump
[CAUTION: External Email]
28 year Pacifica resident and want it on record we are Against Baylands Soil and their dumping in the quarry.

L H
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Allison C
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 8:24 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Baylands Soil Quarry Reclimation Project NO!
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello council members,
My name is Allison Carlisle and I have been a resident of Pacifica for the last 7 years. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am AGAINST the proposed dumping of waste soil into the Baylands quarry. This proposal is a terrible thing for the community and environment for numerous reasons:

1. We have precious little of our delicate coastal ecosystem, and bringing in unregulated fill matter can poison a significant area, beyond just the boundaries of the fill site.

2. Traffic volume and pollution (noise, diesel) will create a significant negative impact on the community.

3. This is an absurd way to spend taxpayer dollars, forcing us to pay to become home to waste material instead of directing funding towards projects that positively impact the community Thank you for reading this email, and I hope you uphold the Planning Commission's decision to shoot down this terrible proposal.

Sincerely,
Allison Carlisle
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Thomas McLaughlin
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 9:01 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Quarry Reclamation Plan
[CAUTION: External Email]
Vote No on the imported dirt plan and the haul trucks that would bring in the unsafe and unhealthy waste dirt into the quarry. Pacifica can’t afford the risks associated with this proposed plan. Our coastal community residents and our tourist visitors will be safer and healthier if you vote NO.

Don’t expect CAL-TRANS, CHP, or the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department to extend extra services to manage the long term problems created by heavily loaded dump trucks on the coast highway. Pacifica can’t afford to accept responsibility for these costly services. Vote NO.

District 4 residents
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Mary Nappi
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 9:29 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Quarry Landfill
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
I respecƞully submit that our city council not vote through a dump site or landfill be allowed at the quarry.

Sincerely,
Mary Nappi,
Resident
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Shannon Randolph
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Landfill Quarry
[CAUTION: External Email]
HelloI’m shouƟng NO to this landfill project.

Shannon
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Lois Marshall-Ward
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please vote NO for Quarry reclamation project
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council,
I have lived in Pacifica for over 30 years, and am strongly against the Quarry reclamation project. It will increase traffic dramatically in Vallemar, and also increase traffic Highway 1 near the quarry and leading to Rockaway Beach.

The dirt being brought could be unsafe, and has potentially devastating environmental impacts. The quarry is a beautiful place that is beloved by the community.

The Planning Commission voted 5 - 0 to deny the project. Please respect the expertise of the Planning Commission, and the people of Pacifica, by voting no on the Quarry Project.

Best regards,
Lois Marshall-Ward
Vallemar resident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Helen Gonzales
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:24 PM
To: Public Comment; Vaterlaus, Sue; Beckmeyer, Sue; [email protected]; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Boles, Christine
Subject: Quarry Appeal Hearing
[CAUTION: External Email]
City Council members:

Please No Dumping.

Please do not allow the Quarry to be taken over by a company that will sicken our community by dumping questionable soil into our atmosphere. Those dirt-laden trucks will cause our air to be polluted on a daily basis. Citizens and visitors will breathe that air. Pollutants will cover our residences, retail businesses, cars, and our most valuable resource--our children. Potential visitors will drive straight through our town instead of stopping for a bite to eat. Not worth it.

We have resided in Pacifica the past 45 years. We live on the northern edge very close to Mussel Rock. When Daly City started digging and moving around a bunch of soil at Mussel Rock as part of their irrigation project, the resulting dust was apparent a mile away! It was always on my car. I could not open my home windows because I have asthma and the pollution was too much. It was like the ash that falls from fires miles away!
Can you imagine how health of ALL will be negatively impacted by the daily assault of foreign soils into our lungs? Lawsuits? Payouts to victims? Pacifica cannot afford. Not worth it.

Our Planning Commission did the right thing. Please work for the common good and deny the appeal to allow quarry dumping.

Thank you.

Helen & Gino Gonzales
Get Outlook for iOS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Thomas McLaughlin
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:37 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: QUARRY RECLAMATION PROPOSAL
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dirt hauling is a dangerous traffic hazard and imported contaminated soil is a safety hazard especially in Pacifica at the quarry site.

The Pacifica City Council has a priority to protect all ciƟzens and property from unnecessary health and safety risks. This is your Ɵme as city council members to protect us, especially from unnecessary risks associated with any imported dirt hauling proposals that use the Pacifica coast highway. Please don’t allow any imported dirt hauling trucks into Pacifica.

District 4 resident
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: JOHN MAYBURY
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Baylands Soil
[CAUTION: External Email]
Please keep toxic dirt out of town
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Denise Malatesta
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: NO TOXIC DUMPING AT OUR QUARRY!!
[CAUTION: External Email]
My husband and I are registered voters and have lived in Pacifica since 1980.

There is no way either of us endorse a project to dump toxic waste in Pacifica.

As officials we voted in at current your posts, please do our and other Pacificas’ bidding: NO TOXIC WASTE AT OUR QUARRY!!!
~ Denise and Peter Malatesta
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) 1 From: Kathryn A. Ramirez
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 5:09 PM
To: _City Council; Vaterlaus, Sue
Cc: Andee Leisy; Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Bigstyck, Tygarjas; Boles, Christine; Coffey, Sarah; Public Comment
Subject: Legal Authority to Uphold Denial by Planning Commission of the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan:

Attachments: RMM for CPUP Comments.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Good Afternoon,
Attached, please find correspondence from Ms. Leisy, on behalf of the Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan and Responsible Planning.

Kind regards,
Ryn Ramirez
R E M Y | M O O S E | M A N L E Y LLP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

7.g
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) September 16, 2024

VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable Mayor Vaterlaus & City Councilmembers
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Legal Authority to Uphold Denial by Planning Commission of the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan: Specific Plan SP-179-22, Quarry Use Permit UP-71-16, Variance PV531-22 and Tree Permit TP-1-22 (File No. 2016-001), Rezoning RZ-210-22, Development Plan DP-86-22 and certification of the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Honorable Mayor Vaterlaus and City Councilmembers, We submit this letter on behalf of the Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan and Responsible Planning (CPUP or the Coalition),*1 with respect to the above entitled Project.

CPUP urges the Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission declining to approve the Project, including the Reduced Fill Alternative, and declining to certify the environmental impact report (EIR) as adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). This letter provides the general legal authority available to the Council, should it so desire, to reject the applicant’s appeal, decline to find the EIR adequate, and to deny the Project.2
As a preliminary matter and in our client’s view, the Planning Commission’s decision was prudent and in the best interest of the City and its constituents. If upheld, the decision would require the applicant to disclose and consider the “whole of the action” as required by CEQA prior to certification of the EIR. CPUP seeks a transparent and holistic City planning and environmental review process, not one that improperly segments the Project into smaller 1 CPUP is a project of Pacifica’s Environmental Family, a 501(c)(3) organization that supports environmental stewardship and education in the City of Pacifica. 2 Because Remy Moose Manley, LLP (RMM) was only recently retained, we intend to submit a follow up letter regarding the substantive inadequacies of the EIR under CEQA before the scheduled September 23, 2024, City Council hearing.

Andrea K. Leisy
[email protected]

7.g
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment F Public Comments Received By 12pm on 2024-09-18 (5761 : Quarry Reclamation Plan Appeal) Honorable Mayor Vaterlaus & City Councilmembers
City of Pacifica
September 16, 2024

Page 2 ends

Pacifica City CouncilSeptember 23, 2024

Pacifica City Council
September 23, 2024