Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 646 University Avenue 6417 Dogtown Road 699 Hampshire Road, Suite 102 Los Gatos, CA 95032 San Andreas, CA 95249‐9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361‐2352 (408) 354‐5542 (209) 736‐4252 • Fax (209) 736‐1212 (805) 370‐8710 www.cottonshires.com
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2024
E5158
By Email ([email protected])
Mr. Roland Yip
CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, California 94044‐2506
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE
SCOPE AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL BUDGET
RE: 310 – 330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project Pacifica, California
Dear Mr. Yip:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recommended and anticipated future scope to complete the drawings and permit the project, and to request additional budget from the City of Pacifica (the City) for the on‐going 310 – 330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project. In the fall of 2018, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) and the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement for $620,046 to complete a geotechnical investigation, develop a bluff protection design, complete environmental documents, and coordinate permitting. CSA teamed with MIG to complete the environmental documents and coordinate permitting, and Mesiti‐Miller Engineering (MME) to undertake the structural design and prepare construction drawings. The project agreement terminated in September 2020.
CURRENT BUDGET STATUS
As of July 31, 2024 the following is our understanding of the budget status:
Firm Original Budget Amount Billed
Remaining
Budget
MIG $406,055 $377,437 $28,618
MME $74,968 $30,000 $45,000
CSA $139,023 $150,356 <$11,333>
Consequently, the Team has roughly $62,285 remaining in our original budget through July 31, 2024.
"ATTACHMENT 3"
Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
We anticipate that the significant tasks still remaining include the following:
Preparing 60%, 90% and 100% drawings and associated calculations; Preparing and submitting permits with the various governing agencies; Preparing construction cost estimates at 30%, 60%, and 90%; Preparing a current topographic survey;
Preparing a topographic survey at the CCC request prior to construction; Completing a third party peer review of the investigation, design, plans at 30%, 60%, and 90%;
Preparing a blufftop restoration plan;
Preparing a SWPPP;
Project management;
Meetings; and
Completing a beach nourishment alternatives analysis, if required.
UNANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENTS
The Project Team has adjusted to various unanticipated developments including the temporary suspension of the project for more than 1 year while the City evaluated options and looked for additional funding, the City’s decision to be the Lead Agency for the environmental permitting, and various additional requirements by the California Coastal Commission.
The following is a summary of the unanticipated developments impacting MIG’s budget and scope:
1. Preparation of a second Administrative Draft EIR in response to comments by the Coastal Conservancy. Review of the EIR by the Coastal Conservancy prior to its public distribution was not included in the original scope, and the responses to comments plus EIR revisions required a substantial effort.
The Responses to Comments included in the FEIR were expanded to address comments contained in multiple email messages to the Public Works Director from the Coastal Conservancy, several of which referenced issues that were brought up by the Coastal Conservancy prior to the formal public review period for the EIR.
2. Additional analysis and mitigation measure development for noise impacts in response to the City Attorney’s comments. MIG’s noise analysts completed additional work to revise the noise section of the Administrative Draft to respond to comments and propose additional measures to reduce construction noise impacts to neighbors. Our original scoping for the EIR assumed that because pile driving was not anticipated Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
to be required for construction of the seawall, detailed noise modeling was not proposed in the scope of work and noise associated with construction activities would be qualitatively evaluated.
3. Analysis of an additional project alternative. The original EIR scope included analysis of three alternatives. The final direction from the City was to include four. This required additional time and resources to research and prepare.
The following is a summary of the unanticipated developments impacting CSA’s and MME’s budget and scope:
1. As requested by the City, the Project Team (MME and CSA) prepared a construction cost estimates in December 2019 ($10.7 million) and assisted in the CalOES estimate in 2021 ($13.6 million). Consequently, we have exhausted our cost estimating budget.
2. CSA has also been providing beyond budget Project Management services for the past four years (when our agreement officially terminated) including, but not limited to attending City Council Meetings, preparing and presenting PowerPoint presentations, supporting the removal of the remanent wall including a site visits, meeting with the City attorney regarding eminent domain of 330 Esplanade and preparing a letter regarding limits of the wall, preparing memos to respond to CCC comments, reviewing the EIR and supporting documents, participating in meeting, and providing consultation.
As a result of these unanticipated delays and tasks, and the expiration of the original contract, the Project Team does not have sufficient remaining budget to complete the anticipated remaining tasks. The Project Team proposes to enter into a new contract with the City and incorporate an updated scope and budget.
ANTICIPATED REMAINING TASKS
Based on discussions with the City, MIG, and MME, the Project Team does not have sufficient budget to complete the anticipated and recommended remaining tasks.
In the following sections we list and describe the anticipated and recommended remaining tasks for the project:
1. Complete the Design, Calculations and Prepare 60% and 90% and 100% Drawings – MME will prepare 60%, 90%, and 100% design, drawings and supporting calculations. CSA will provide support and an updated topographic survey (see Item No. 4) for a base map.
Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2. Permitting – MIG will review and update permit applications to reflect information that came out of the CEQA process. Then the City staff will need to review these applications, and MIG will revise them as needed, before they can be submitted.
3. Construction Cost Estimates at 30%, 60% and 90% ‐ Based on the highly volatile construction environment right now, due in part to supply chain issues of construction materials, and to assist the City with budgeting and financing the project, we recommend that the City authorize CSA to contract with a specialty estimating firm (MCK Americas) to prepare construction cost estimates based on the 30%, 60%, and 90% MME plans. CSA has contacted a Cost Estimator with local experience in estimating similar projects.
4. Current Topographic Survey ‐ Based on conversations with the City, we agree that a current topographic survey should be prepared to capture the current site conditions, including the southern extent of the new Ocean Breeze retaining wall.
Note that a significant delay between the completion of design plans and the start of construction may necessitate additional surveys.
5. Topographic Survey Per CCC Request – The California Coastal Commission is requesting a topographic survey of the beach area with a point every 15 feet. Note that a significant delay between design plan preparation and construction may necessitate an additional survey if requested by the CCC.
6. Third Party Peer Review – CSA has contacted a design firm with coastal engineering experience (Anchor QEA), and received a proposal to complete a third‐party peer review of the investigation, design, and drawings at 30%, 60%, and 90%.
7. Prepare a Blufftop Restoration Plan – MIG will prepare a blufftop restoration plan including Preliminary Landscape Restoration Drawings, Final Design Documents, and Bid and Construction Support;
8. Prepare a SWPPP – Unfortunately, MIG no longer has in‐house expertise to prepare a SWPPP. Consequently, the cost to prepare a SWPPP was not included in our costs.
9. Project Management – CSA will continue to provide project management, including reviewing documents prepared by MIG and MME, reviewing documents provided by the City, coordinate the construction cost estimates, Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
coordinate the third‐party peer review, prepare invoices, and pay MIG, MME, and the other subs. Our Project Management estimate is based on an assumption that the project will be completed in 12 months, and CSA will provide an average of 3 hours per month of project management services.
10. Meetings – CSA has budgeted for 16 hours of Senior Principal hours.
11. Beach Nourishment Source Alternative Analysis ‐ CSA has contacted a design firm with coastal engineering experience (Anchor QEA), and received a proposal to complete a beach nourishment source alternatives analysis, in the event that this analysis is required by the CCC.
12. CSA Project Management Service Past Four Years – As previously described, CSA as been providing beyond budget Project Management service for the past four years.
FEE
Based on the attached 2024 Schedule of Charges, and a time‐and‐expenses basis, we estimate the following fees for the corresponding tasks will be:
Task Estimated Additional Requested
1. – Complete 60%, 90% and 100% Drawings
(CSA/MME) ($2,275+$69,200‐$45,000) $26,475
2. – Permitting (CSA/MIG) ($9,596‐$4,000) $5,596
3. – Construction Cost Estimates at 30%, 60% and 90% (MCK) $35,746
4. – Current Topographic Survey (CSA) $10,806
5. – Topographic Survey to Conform to CCC Request (CSA) $11,406
6. – Third Party Peer Review (Anchor QEA) $29,994
7. – Prepare Blufftop Restoration Plan (MIG) ($44,070‐$24,618) $19,452
8. – Prepare a SWPPP N/A
9. – Project Management (CSA) $12,600
10. – Meetings (CSA) $5,600
11. – Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis (Anchor) $28,347 Roland Yip August 6, 2024, Revised August 30, 2029
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
12. – Beyond Budget for CSA Services Past Four Years (CSA) $11,333 Total $197,355
As we previously indicated, the Project Team has approximately $62,285 of remaining budget, ($45,000+$4,000+$24,618‐$11,333 = $62,285) which is reflected in the above column in the italic’s numbers. We request an additional $197,355 to our initial $620,046 budget for a project total of $817,401 complete the anticipated and recommended remaining tasks for the project, as well as a beach nourishment analysis, if required by CCC.
Please note that CSA will be using our 2024 rates for the remaining portion of this amended agreement, and will charge mileage at the current accepted Federal reimbursement rate. CSA will charge a 5% service fee for the sub‐contracted estimator and peer reviewer (and beach nourishment analysis), but not for MME or MIG. Also note that the $62,285 remaining budget will be reduced by any work in progress in August 2024.
LIMITATIONS
Our services consist of professional opinions and conceptual recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering geology and geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, or merchantability or fitness, is made in or intended connection with our work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
MC:TP:DTS
Attachment: Schedule of Charges 2024; Project Involvement Spread Sheet; Project Budget Estimate Spread Sheet; MIG Budget Status letter; Proposal from MCK Americas; Proposal from Anchor QEA
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
January 2024
Personnel Charges
Senior Principal Engineer/Geologist/Geophysicist $ 350/hr Principal Geologist/Engineer $ 295/hr
Supervising Geologist/Engineer $ 240/hr
Senior Geologist/Engineer $ 215/hr
Senior GIS Specialist $ 195/hr
Senior Staff Geologist/Engineer $ 185/hr
Staff Geologist/Engineer $ 165/hr
Field/Laboratory Technician $ 140/hr*
Clerical/Accounting $ 100/hr
Equipment, Mileage and Copying Charges
Downhole/Culvert Camera Inspection Equipment………….. $ 250/day Drone System $ 240/day
Inclinometer System $ 240/day
Piezometer Data Acquisition System $ 125/day
Total Station Surveying Equipment $ 360/day
GPS Surveying Equipment $ 460/day
Compaction Testing Moisture/Unit Weight Gauge $ 175/day Rope Climbing Safety Equipment $ 295/day
Multi-Channel Seismograph System and ReMi $ 350/day
NearMap Aerial Photographs $ 215/site
Vehicle Mileage (or Current IRS Approved Rate) $ 0.67/mi Aircraft Mileage (or Current GSA Approved Rate) $1.76/nmi Photocopying (B&W-Color) $0.25-0.60/copy
Engineering (Large Format) Copier $ 0.65/ft2
Computer Assisted Color Plotting $ 16/sq. ft.
Expert Witness Consultation Charges
Expert witness testimony for court appearances and binding arbitrations shall be charged on a daily basis (minimum one-half day increments) at a rate of $4,800 per day. Deposition testimony shall be charged at a rate of $600 per hour (minimum one hour charge). Preparation time for depositions or court appearances shall be charged on a time-and-expenses basis in accordance with the Personnel, Equipment, Mileage, Copying and Expense charges listed herein.
Laboratory Testing and Geophysical Services Charges
Laboratory testing and geophysical services shall be charged on a time-andexpenses basis in accordance with the Personnel, Equipment, and Expense charges listed herein.
Laboratory samples shall be stored for 60 days after the date of final report submittal unless special arrangements and fees are agreed upon for longer storage.
Prevailing Wage Charges
* Field and/or laboratory personnel on public works projects subject to Prevailing Wage requirements will be invoiced at the rate of $185/hr.
Expense Charges (Receipted Costs Plus 15%)
• Travel expenses including air fare, lodging, vehicle rental, etc. (either actual receipted costs plus 15% for meals or a flat subsistence charge of $80 per diem for overnight stay shall be charged in addition to the lodging cost)
• Excavation subcontractors and expendable field supplies (inclinometer casing, piezometers, stakes, paint, etc.).
• Reproduction of drawings
• Photograph printing
• Special fees, permits, insurance, etc.
• Special mail service (air, electronic, courier, etc.) • Special equipment rental
• Special consultant fees
Cotton, Shires & Associates
Date: August 30, 2024PROJECT INVOLVEMENT
Personnel Hours by Task Subtask Cost
David Schrier
Andrew Mead
CSA
Supervising
CSA Senior
Staff
CSA Staff
Sam Nolan
Task I - Complete the Design, Calculations and Prepare 60%, 90% and 100% -Respond to Question and Support MME 6.5 $ 2,275.00 Task II - Permiting -Review Documents and Support MIG $ -Task III - Construction Cost Estimates at 30%, 60% and 90% -Job Walk/Site Meeting 4 $ 1,400.00 Respond to Question and Support MCK 8 $ 2,800.00
Task IV - Current Topographic Survey -Coordinate Survey 4 $ 660.00 Topographic Survey 16 16 $ 5,600.00
Prepare Electronic Base Map 88 $ 3,680.00
Task V - Topographic Survey per CCC Request -Coordinate Survey 4 $ 660.00 Topographic Survey 16 16 $ 5,600.00
Prepare Electronic Base Map 88 $ 3,680.00
Task VI - Third Party Peer Review -Job Walk/Site Meeting 4 $ 1,400.00 Respond to Question and Support Achor QEA 8 $ 2,800.00
Task VII - Prepare Blufftop Resoration Plan -Review Plans and Support MIG $ - Task VIII - Project Management -Project Management 36 $ 12,600.00 Task IX - Meetings -Prepare For and Attend Video Conference Meeting 16 $ 5,600.00 Task X - Sand Nourishment Analysis -Complete a Sand Nourishment Analysis if Required 6 $ 2,100.00 Totals 88.5 16 0 32 56 0 $50,855.00
Senior Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer P.E., G. E.
Principal Engineering
Geologist, P.G.,
C.E.G.
Supervising
Geologist/Engineer
Senior Staff
Geologist/Engineer
Staff
Geologist/Engineer
Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer, P.E., G.E.
Project Name: 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure PreservationProject Number: E5158 Task
Cotton, Shires and Associates
I. Personnel Costs
Professional Staff Hours Rate Total
David Schrier 88.5 350.00 $ $30,975.00
Andrew Mead 16 295.00 $ $4,720.00
CSA Supervising 0 215.00 $ $0.00
CSA Senior Staff 32 185.00 $ $5,920.00
CSA Staff 56 165.00 $ $9,240.00
Sam Nolan 0 295.00 $ $0.00
Subtotal $50,855.00
II. Direct Costs Units/Miles Rate
Travel 1000 0.67 $ $665.00
MME - Structural 1 69,200.00 $ $69,200.00
MIG - Permit/Envirmonmental 1 53,666.00 $ $53,666.00
MCK - Cost Estimator 1 29,980.00 $ $31,479.00
Anchor QED - Third Party Rev/Sand 1 49,500.00 $ $51,975.00 Total Station 2 300.00 $ $600.00
Photogrammetry 1 600.00 $ $600.00
Drone 2 300.00 $ $600.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal: $208,785.00
III. Fee For Remaining Work $259,640.00
IV. Remaining Budget $62,285.00
V. Additional Requested Budget $197,355.00
Project Number: E5158
Project Name: 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation
PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE
Date: August 30, 2024
August 6, 2024
David Schrier
Cotton Shires & Associates
646 University Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95032
Subject: Pacifica Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project MIG Budget Status Dear David:
Per the City of Pacifica’s request, MIG is providing a current budget status for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation project, which we have had the pleasure of working on with Cotton Shires and the City since 2018. We last provided an update in 2022. The project EIR was recently completed, and we are preparing to submit the permit applications to the City for final review prior to submitting them to the California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
To date we have completed the technical studies, a preliminary bluff top restoration plan, the environmental documentation, and draft project permits. MIG had initially prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and then was asked to convert that to an Environmental Impact Report. We had estimated the cost to do that and determined that the existing budget could cover the cost if we shifted funds between tasks. The City was not yet prepared to approach the Council for additional funding, so we proceeded under those terms, and updated the budget in 2022.
The amount billed through 7/31/24 is shown below. This reflects 2022 billing rates. It does not reflect charges incurred beyond 7/31/24.
MIG Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project Budget Billed as of 7/31/2024 Project Phase Project Budget JTD Billed (As
of 7/31/22)
Inv# 87003
(June 2024)
Inv# 87410
(July 2024)
Total Billed (as
of 7/31/24)
Balance
Remaining (as of
7/31/24)
% Phase
Completed
1: Project Planning, Team Meetings, & Management (1.1) $47,114 $29,237.31 $96.25 $1,808.75 $43,861.06 $3,252.94 93.10% 2: 2.1 Conceptual Design Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $4,105 $4,105.00 $4,105.00 $0.00 100.00% 3: 3.1 Preliminary Design Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $3,178 $3,177.50 $3,177.50 $0.50 100% 4: 4 Env Documentation Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $111,871 $111,869.68 $111,869.68 $1.32 100% 6: 6 Project Permitting Thru 7/31/22 (Phase Closed) $51,368 $51,367.50 $51,367.50 $0.50 100% 11: Technical Studies (2) $3,190 $0.00 $0.00 $3,190.00 0% 12: Environmental Documentation (3) $113,704 $0.00 $3,787.50 $320.00 $155,837.74 -$42,133.74 137% 13: Blufftop Restoration (4) $45,480 $0.00 $1,410.00 $44,070.00 3% 14: Project Permits: 404, 401, CDP (6) $15,405 $0.00 $5,808.75 $9,596.25 38% 15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (7) $10,640 $0.00 $0.00 $10,640.00 0% Total Budget ($406,055) $406,055 $199,756.99 $3,883.75 $2,128.75 $377,437.23 $28,617.77 93% David Schrier, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.
August 6, 2024
MIG 2 , Inc.
As you can see, the EIR process resulted in a budget overrun of $42,133.74. This is largely due to three out of scope tasks that were completed:
1. Preparation of a second Administrative Draft EIR in response to comments by the Coastal Conservancy. Review of the EIR by the Coastal Conservancy prior to its public distribution was not included in the original scope, and the responses to comments plus EIR revisions required a substantial effort.
2. Additional analysis and mitigation measure development for noise impacts in response to the City Attorney’s comments. Our noise analysts completed additional work to revise the noise section of the Administrative Draft to respond to comments and propose additional measures to reduce construction noise impacts to neighbors.
3. Analysis of an additional project alternative. The original EIR scope included analysis of three alternatives. The ϐinal direction from the City was to include four. This required additional time and resources to research and prepare.
In addition, responses to some of the agency comments from the Coastal Commission and CDFW on the Public Draft EIR required additional research and impact analysis, such as the rates of bluff retreat, effectiveness of the proposed armoring, project effects on sand supply on the beach, and bank swallow habitat impacts.
The following MIG tasks are yet to be completed:
Blufftop Restoration. The blufftop restoration includes a 4.1 Draft Concept Drawing ($10,245), 4.2 Preliminary Landscape Restoration Drawings ($12,050), 4.3 Final Design Documents ($12,765) and 4.4 Bid and Construction Support ($10,420). The total cost estimate is $45,480. So far we have prepared the concept drawing for the EIR at a cost of $1,410. The estimated cost to complete this, using 2022 rates, is $44,070. Permit Applications. The permit applications need to be reviewed and updated by MIG to reϐlect information that came out of the CEQA process. Then the City staff should review these applications, we can revise them as needed, and they can be submitted. The $9,596 remaining in this task should cover submittal, but may not cover additional agency meetings and negotiations.
We are also scoped to do the SWPPP for $10,640. MIG does not currently have practitioners available for this task, so it is not included in this request for budget amendment.
In summary, MIG needs $44,070 (blufftop restoration plan), plus $9,596 (permit revision and submittal), for a total of $53,666. The remaining budget (as of today’s date 8/6/24) is $28,618.
Subtracting that from $53,666 results in $25,048 as the additional budget needed to complete the blufftop restoration and submitting the permit applications. I suggest adding $5,000 to that David Schrier, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.
August 6, 2024
MIG 3 , Inc.
total (to $30,048) if the City needs MIG to attend meetings and correspond with the resource agencies once the permits are submitted.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Taylor Peterson
Director of Biological Analysis
MCK Americas Inc.
150 Executive Park Blvd., Suite 2150
San Francisco, CA 94134
415.656.3264
mckinc.net
July 17, 2024
David Schrier,
City of Pacifica 310-330 Esplanade Seawall Estimating Services Dear David,
Please find our proposal for providing cost estimating services for the City of Pacifica 310-330 Esplanade Seawall project. As discussed, the effort below is for project support during the design development of the project and will be performed on a time and material basis. We’re open to discussing the proposal if you have any questions or concerns. Upon approval, we are prepared to begin the assignment.
Please contact me at 845-548-62810 if you have any questions regarding this proposal.
Warm Regards,
Nate Gavzy
Executive Vice President
MCK Americas Inc.
August 30, 2024
33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, California 94105 DRAFT 415.230.0862
David Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc.
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030
Re: 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project: Seawall Peer Review and Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis
Dear Mr. Schrier,
Anchor QEA appreciates the opportunity to submit this scope of work and cost estimate to conduct a seawall peer review and beach nourishment alternatives analysis for the City of Pacifica’s (City) 310- 330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (Figure 1). MME Civil + Structural Engineering (MME) is completing the seawall design and CSA is providing the associated geotechnical engineering. Anchor QEA’s peer review will provide a concept design review, value engineering analysis, high-level constructability review, and constructability and technical reviews of the seawall design at specified 30%, 60% and 90% design stages. At the time of this proposal, MME is at the 30% design stage for the seawall. The resulting peer review documentation, as well as the beach nourishment alternatives analysis, will be used in permit applications discussions with the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
The buildings located at 310, 320 and 330 Esplanade Avenue were condemned by the City and removed between 2016 and 2017. CSA’s 2019 Geotechnical Investigation characterized the physical and geological setting, evaluated the site conditions and hazards and provided design recommendations for the construction of a seawall. CSA estimated a bluff retreat rate of 2.7 feet per year for a total of 200 feet between 1943 and 2017, increasing recently to 5.4 feet per year between 2004 to 2017. The City of Pacifica aims to slow the coastal bluff retreat and protect remaining infrastructure (i.e. public street and underground utilities) along Esplanade Avenue with the construction of a seawall at the adjacent cliffs.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published in May 2024, and described the proposed seawall to include a buried sheet pile wall at the toe of the bluff, a cap beam on top of the sheet pile wall, and a shotcrete wall secured to the bluff face with tieback rods/tendons drilled into the bluff face. The shotcrete wall is approximately 650 feet long, extends to an elevation of 40 feet above sea level, which is approximately a height of 26 feet above the toe of the bluff. The seawall’s design life is expected to be 30 years. The project includes removing loose debris against the bluff and existing August 30, 2024
riprap on the beach, as well as constructing a trail, fencing, signage, and native plant landscaping on the blufftop. Beach nourishment was eliminated during the alternatives analysis of the project.
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Proposed Tasks
This proposed scope of work includes the primary tasks outline in the following subsections.
Task 1. Seawall Peer Review
Anchor QEA proposes to perform reviews of the seawall at 30%, 60%, and 90% design phases. At the 30% design level, we recommend a concept design review and value engineering analysis of the proposed seawall design. Anchor QEA proposes to perform a high-level constructability review at 60% design. Lastly at the 90% design level, we recommend constructability and technical reviews of the seawall design.
Task 1.1: 30% Design Peer Review
Anchor QEA will perform a concept design review and value engineering analysis of the 30% seawall design documents. These documents are expected to include a basis of design report/narrative, plans, geotechnical recommendations report, and a coastal/hydraulics report. We assume our scope will not include reviewing technical specifications or structural calculations for this submittal.
Anchor QEA will participate in a kick-off meeting at the start of this review phase and a debrief meeting at the end.
August 30, 2024
Task 1.2: 60% Design Peer Review
Anchor QEA will perform a high-level constructability review of the 60% seawall design documents.
These documents will only include the plans and structural calculations at this phase of design. We assume our scope will not include reviewing any additional documents at this phase of design.
Anchor QEA will participate in a kick-off meeting at the start of this review phase and a debrief meeting at the end.
Task 1.3: 90% Design Peer Review
Anchor QEA will perform a constructability review and technical review of the 90% design documents. These documents will include a basis of design report/narrative, plans, technical specifications, geotechnical recommendations report, and a coastal/hydraulics report.
Anchor QEA will participate in a kick-off meeting at the start of this review phase and a debrief meeting at the end.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include the following:
• All kick-off and debrief meetings will be virtual and no longer than 1-hour for each meeting.
• A detailed quality assurance check will not be performed as part of the constructability and technical reviews for the 90% design review.
• Back up calculations to confirm seawall design will not be performed as part of the technical review for the 90% design.
Deliverables
Deliverables for Task 1 are as follows:
• 30% Brief memo and comment log
• 60% Brief memo and comment log
• 90% Brief memo and comment log
Task 2. Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis
The CCC commented on the Draft EIR in November 2023, stating in their comments that the sand replenishment alternative noted in the Draft EIR should be evaluated in more depth for the selected project, given that CCC states the proposed project would cut off the sand supply to the beach fronting the toe of the bluff. Because CCC requires mitigation for adverse impacts on sand supply, the City would benefit from identifying feasible beach nourishment source alternatives, or the justification for the lack thereof, at early stages of design.
August 30, 2024
Beach nourishment has been evaluated numerous times in Pacifica at various locations, with or without offshore retention structures. There are various approaches the City could authorize in response to CCC comments and more recent communications Anchor QEA may not be aware of.
Anchor QEA could perform a coastal analysis similar to that performed for Beach Boulevard to estimate the target beach width for coastal hazard protection, the volume of sand required to achieve this beach width, the frequency of re-nourishment events required to maintain a minimum beach width, and the persistence and longevity of beach nourishment with and without offshore retention structures. This analysis assumes that a suitable sand source is identified and remains consistent for the project lifespan, i.e. 30 years.
Alternatively, or additionally, the City could assume the desired quantity of beach-quality sand will be more than what’s currently available nearby or economically feasible for the City. Knowing this, time and energy may best be directed to investigate unexplored partnerships or incentives the City could create to opportunistically receive sand-quality material, limited may it be presently. Anchor QEA could develop a brief list of potential paths forward, ranging from the most time-intensive largescale regional partnerships with US Army Corps of Engineers, to pilot studies with research agencies to place material with higher percentages of fines than typically approved on beaches (opening up other sources that may not have been considered in the past), or to developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for sediment suitability determinations to incentivize those with sand to place material at the beach project site instead of elsewhere. Each alternative has opportunities and constraints in cost, timing, and practical feasibility.
Anchor QEA proposes to have an initial kick-off to discuss these possible approaches with the City, then potentially in partnership with the CCC, to determine the best path forward for the City to obtain CCC’s future permit approval. Anchor QEA would review the available online documentation and previous studies provided by the City. For estimated Anchor QEA costs in this proposal, Anchor QEA will summarize up to four potential sources or actions the City could take to encourage or enable future beach nourishment at the project site.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include the following:
• The kick-off and comment review meeting will have a virtual option and be no longer than 1-hour for each meeting.
• This task does not include coastal modeling, data collection, field assessment, or survey work.
• Costs will be discussed relative to other source alternatives. • This task includes up to 100 hours total of Principal, Senior Managing, Senior and Staff Coastal Engineers; including 24 hours for a Senior Managing Coastal Engineer and 48 hours for a Senior Coastal Engineer.
August 30, 2024
Deliverables
Deliverables for Task 2 are as follows:
• Draft Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis Memo • Final Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis Memo Estimated Costs
Estimated costs for Tasks 1 and 2 are summarized below.
Table 1
Estimated Costs
Task No. Description Estimated Cost
1 Peer Review $ 24,500
2 Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis $ 25,000 Total $ 49,500
Schedule
The kick-off meeting is anticipated to occur within two weeks of notice to proceed from the City.
Anchor QEA will provide the peer review brief memo and comment log within 2 weeks of receiving each design submittal. The Draft Beach Nourishment Source Alternatives Analysis Memo will be provided within one month after the kick-off meeting with the City and instruction is provided by the CCC if the City wishes for their input on approach. City comments will be incorporated into the Final Memo within two weeks of receival. The project duration will depend on the seawall design; but is anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2024.
Anchor QEA appreciates the opportunity to provide this scope to support CSA and the City. If you have questions regarding this effort, please do not hesitate to contact Megan Collins at (415) 361- 5149 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Megan Collins, PE
Project Manager / Senior Managing Coastal Engineer