Agenda — Pacifica City Council, December 12, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 December 12, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
December 12, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.

PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate in the meeting:
• Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Call-In Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, dial-in to the number and enter the Conference ID listed below. You will be placed on hold in a call-queue.

Please mute any background sound and listen through your phone to be called upon by the last 4-digits of your phone number. State your full name at the start of your public comment. • Dial-in: 1-650-898-6965 | Conference ID: 383 609 442 # o Press * 5 to raise your hand in the call queue.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #.

Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:

BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.

City Council Regular Meeting 2 December 12, 2022
AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff. 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. Property: 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica (APN 023-281-130). Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Art Guild of Pacifica. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of lease. 6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION - SPECIAL MEETING
Special Presentations
A. Proclamation - In Recognition of Kevin Mullin, California State Assemblymember 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
B. Proclamation - In Recognition of Tom Piccolotti, North Coast County Water District Board Member
C. Announcement / Introduction of New City Employees

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 December 12, 2022
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 10/16/22 through 10/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 10/16/22 through 10/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on November 28, 2022.

3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.

5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

6. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.

7. Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending September 30, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending September 30, 2022.

8. Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to enter into an agreement with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing Child Care and development services and to authorize the designated personnel to sign contract documents for fiscal year 2023-24, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving an Agreement with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the Purpose of Providing Child Care City Council Regular Meeting 4 December 12, 2022
and Development Services and to authorize the Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents for Fiscal Years 2023-24.”

9. 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022.

10. Letter to the Governor Regarding Net Energy Metering 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Governor Newsom expressing concerns about the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Net Energy Metering (NEM) proposal.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during Oral Communications, provided, however, that during the Oral Communications portion of the agenda, only items not on the agenda for that meeting may be addressed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Oral Communications. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2-1.118 any person making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Council shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may, at the direction of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during the meeting.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

11. 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopting the City of Pacifica 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

12. Public-Private Partnership Feasibility Analysis Next Steps PROPOSED ACTION: Hear a presentation on the results of a conceptual public-private partnership feasibility analysis involving the City’s corporation yard on Milagra Avenue and the Pacifica School District’s administrative offices on Reina del Mar Avenue, and City Council Regular Meeting 5 December 12, 2022
provide direction to the City Manager about next steps.

13. Appointment of Ad Hoc Subcommittee for Pride 2023 Event Planning PROPOSED ACTION: Consider appointing a two-councilmember limited-term ad hoc subcommittee to work with Coastside Pride on the planning for 2023 Pride Celebration events in Pacifica.

ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.

The Pacifica Municipal Code is available on line at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at the Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive.

View on the Internet:

Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:

Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 540 Crespi Drive
Council meetings:

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313
• Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 349-2200
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier, 155 Bovet Road, Suite 780, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 342-0300
• Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553
• Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707
• President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500 City Council Regular Meeting 6 December 12, 2022

CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Mike O’Neill, mo’[email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 10/16/22 through 10/31/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 10/16/22 through 10/31/22.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 10/16/22 through 10/31/22 in the amount of $1,093,992.57 as written on regular checks numbered 62281-62350, 62371-62473 & 62865-62866 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62281-62350, 62371-62473 & 62865-62866- 10-16 to 10-31-22 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 7
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 1

REPORT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
ORGANIZATION : 001
BANK : 1
PRINT BY : CHECK #
SORT OPTION : CHECK #
PRINT DETAILS : N
ORG NAME FOR EXTRACT FILE : PACIFICA
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62281 - 62350
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62281 $4900.91 10/21/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 62282 $1169.37 10/21/22 05713 0 ABACUS PRODUCTS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62283 $5286.23 10/21/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 62284 $132.75 10/21/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62285 $2787.95 10/21/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62286 $751.25 10/21/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62287 $358.00 10/21/22 05556 0 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62288 $316.88 10/21/22 01890 0 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62289 $52.65 10/21/22 00001 377 ASSERETO, GINO S OUTSTANDING 1 62290 $600.20 10/21/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62291 $776.56 10/21/22 00343 0 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. S OUTSTANDING 1 62292 $185.96 10/21/22 00002 61 BRAUN, LUCIE (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 62293 $302.70 10/21/22 05712 0 CAL-PAC ROOFING SAN MATEO S OUTSTANDING 1 62294 $160.00 10/21/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 62295 $7481.00 10/21/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62296 $610.03 10/21/22 00488 0 CENTRISYS S OUTSTANDING 1 62297 $2049.30 10/21/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 62298 $82.42 10/21/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 62299 $5626.55 10/21/22 04446 0 COLORPRINT S OUTSTANDING 1 62300 $396.00 10/21/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 62301 $169.02 10/21/22 02168 2 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 62302 $2821.73 10/21/22 01204 1 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS S OUTSTANDING 1 62303 $78458.01 10/21/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62304 $12112.50 10/21/22 05691 0 DKS ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 62305 $1300.00 10/21/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62306 $109.95 10/21/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 62307 $1876.00 10/21/22 05102 0 EPSTEIN + HOLTZAPPLE LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 62308 $4830.00 10/21/22 03331 0 EWERS ENGINEERING S OUTSTANDING 1 62309 $77.00 10/21/22 00758 0 EXPERIAN S OUTSTANDING
1 62310 $49.14 10/21/22 00773 0 FEDEX S OUTSTANDING
1 62311 $7182.85 10/21/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62312 $328.13 10/21/22 02213 0 GARRATT CALLAHAN S OUTSTANDING 1 62313 $7165.48 10/21/22 05220 0 GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62314 $6052.52 10/21/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 62315 $1009.55 10/21/22 04999 2 IMAGE SOURCE S OUTSTANDING 1 62316 $33750.34 10/21/22 04325 1 INTRENSIC S OUTSTANDING 1 62317 $2104.47 10/21/22 00993 0 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62318 $1500.00 10/21/22 05090 0 JOE LAWRENCE S OUTSTANDING 1 62319 $300.78 10/21/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62320 $95.00 10/21/22 05333 0 KASEYA US LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62321 $5867.50 10/21/22 05535 0 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62322 $1475.24 10/21/22 05710 0 KYLE UMIDON S OUTSTANDING 1 62323 $525.00 10/21/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62324 $189.63 10/21/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62325 $285.00 10/21/22 01165 0 MILLER & O'BRIEN S OUTSTANDING 1 62326 $739.01 10/21/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62327 $178.20 10/21/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62328 $13373.88 10/21/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 62329 $1739.75 10/21/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 62330 $326.02 10/21/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 62331 $208478.94 10/21/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 12/1/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62281-62350, 62371-62473 & 62865-62866- 10-16 to 10-31-22 (5186 : Disbursements - Dated10/16/22 1 62337 $670.71 10/21/22 05465 0 SIGILLO SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62338 $16715.00 10/21/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62339 $376.00 10/21/22 05576 0 STEVE KWON S OUTSTANDING 1 62340 $7950.00 10/21/22 04359 0 TORRES CLEANING SERVICES, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62341 $284.58 10/21/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 62342 $283.08 10/21/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 62343 $3103.85 10/21/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62344 $75.12 10/21/22 01667 0 USA BLUE BOOK S OUTSTANDING 1 62345 $782.79 10/21/22 03980 0 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62346 $1500.04 10/21/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 62347 $2242.62 10/21/22 01701 0 WECO INDUSTRIES S OUTSTANDING 1 62348 $167.37 10/21/22 01707 0 WEST COAST CONTRACTORS SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62349 $100.00 10/21/22 04824 0 YAKOV PUHACHEVSKY S REISSUE 1 62350 $275303.97 10/20/22 05495 0 W.E. LYONS CONSTRUCTION CO. S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 70 TOTAL AMOUNT: 742,713.57
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 100.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 4

FUND TOTALS
-----------

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 174,859.94 100.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 33,750.34 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 15,752.45 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 19,396.02 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 211,898.06 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 276,772.28 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 818.56 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 178.20 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 9,187.72 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 742,613.57 100.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62371 - 62473
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62371 $1279.91 10/30/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 62372 $464.06 10/30/22 00937 0 A-1 RHINO LININGS S OUTSTANDING 1 62373 $1225.00 10/30/22 01585 0 ACCUTITE S OUTSTANDING 1 62374 $8.64 10/30/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 62375 $2136.62 10/30/22 00045 2 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY S OUTSTANDING 1 62376 $383.00 10/30/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62377 $632.76 10/30/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62378 $726.00 10/30/22 05556 0 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62379 $237.15 10/30/22 03895 0 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62380 $2473.16 10/30/22 05719 0 ASHLEY BENN S OUTSTANDING 1 62381 $1390.73 10/30/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 62382 $129.69 10/30/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 62383 $4200.00 10/30/22 03188 0 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62384 $271.00 10/30/22 00265 0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 62385 $538.36 10/30/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62386 $214.00 10/30/22 00001 373 BIVENS, REGINALD S OUTSTANDING 1 62387 $425.00 10/30/22 00001 343 BLACKBURN, CODY S OUTSTANDING 1 62388 $52.39 10/30/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62389 $200.00 10/30/22 02118 0 BOOTZIN/ALEX S OUTSTANDING 1 62390 $65504.40 10/30/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 62391 $202.00 10/30/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 62392 $2850.00 10/30/22 05443 0 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEERING, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62393 $22697.10 10/30/22 05519 1 CARDIO PARTNERS INC. S VOIDED 1 62394 $2344.95 10/30/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 62395 $43.00 10/30/22 05720 0 CHIT KYAW S OUTSTANDING 1 62396 $1914.41 10/30/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 62397 $180.00 10/30/22 00383 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME S OUTSTANDING 1 62398 $5107.43 10/30/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 62399 $842.89 10/30/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 62400 $3921.73 10/30/22 01204 1 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS S OUTSTANDING 1 62401 $1037.00 10/30/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62402 $1182.66 10/30/22 00622 0 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. S OUTSTANDING 1 62403 $450.00 10/30/22 00001 321 DA ROZA, JOHN PAUL S OUTSTANDING 1 62404 $1710.00 10/30/22 00771 0 DAVID L. SKROMME S OUTSTANDING 1 62405 $16850.49 10/30/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62406 $55.91 10/30/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 62407 $1080.22 10/30/22 04354 0 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62408 $4617.94 10/30/22 04386 1 EDGEWORTH INTEGRATION LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62409 $31.00 10/30/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 12/1/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62281-62350, 62371-62473 & 62865-62866- 10-16 to 10-31-22 (5186 : Disbursements - Dated10/16/22 1 62410 $4394.29 10/30/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62411 $78.22 10/30/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING
1 62412 $808.82 10/30/22 00892 0 HACH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62413 $4772.96 10/30/22 04859 1 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62414 $940.00 10/30/22 00990 0 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS S OUTSTANDING 1 62415 $11248.91 10/30/22 05470 0 JMI SOURCING LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62416 $76.56 10/30/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62417 $230.41 10/30/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 62418 $965.00 10/30/22 01067 0 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS S OUTSTANDING 1 62419 $148.01 10/30/22 01090 0 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES S OUTSTANDING 1 62420 $1820.40 10/30/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62421 $609.68 10/30/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62371 - 62473
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62422 $2272.50 10/30/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 62423 $1776.36 10/30/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 62424 $118.20 10/30/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 62425 $949.73 10/30/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 62426 $600.00 10/30/22 01240 3 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 62427 $290.95 10/30/22 05724 0 PALMETTO SOLAR LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62428 $7250.00 10/30/22 01297 0 PARS S OUTSTANDING
1 62429 $2200.00 10/30/22 01300 0 PEPPER BROS BUILDING MAINTENANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 62430 $647.92 10/30/22 04139 0 PET FOOD EXPRESS S OUTSTANDING 1 62431 $731.16 10/30/22 05350 0 PRODIGY PRESS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62432 $4800.78 10/30/22 01329 0 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO., INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62433 $57.58 10/30/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62434 $174.72 10/30/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62435 $1923.00 10/30/22 00042 1 R & S ERECTION NORTH PENINSULA INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62436 $1496.00 10/30/22 03526 0 RADAR SHOP INC., THE S OUTSTANDING 1 62437 $20211.66 10/30/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62438 $1640.00 10/30/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 62439 $215.00 10/30/22 00001 55 RON FASCENDA S OUTSTANDING 1 62440 $4833.30 10/30/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 62441 $156.16 10/30/22 05197 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL S OUTSTANDING 1 62442 $15662.04 10/30/22 05690 1 SCA OF CA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62443 $600.00 10/30/22 02810 0 SEWER RAT S OUTSTANDING 1 62444 $1200.00 10/30/22 01501 1 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 62445 $312.78 10/30/22 01546 1 STERICYCLE S OUTSTANDING 1 62446 $1477.64 10/30/22 01587 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 62447 $6000.00 10/30/22 05487 0 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 62448 $150.00 10/30/22 01029 2 THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62449 $170.20 10/30/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62450 $895.41 10/30/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62451 $30.98 10/30/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 62452 $23038.11 10/30/22 01656 1 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62453 $2748.89 10/30/22 02922 0 UNLIMITED TOOL REPAIR AND FABRICATION. S OUTSTANDING 1 62454 $285.63 10/30/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62455 $47.54 10/30/22 02899 1 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62456 $474.91 10/30/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 62457 $23500.00 10/30/22 05725 0 WALTER MACDONALD S OUTSTANDING 1 62458 $1313.79 10/30/22 05726 0 WARNER CUSTOM HOMES INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62459 $242.76 10/28/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 62460 $192.00 10/28/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 62461 $50.00 10/28/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62462 $350.00 10/28/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62463 $562.66 10/28/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62464 $100.00 10/28/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62465 $110.00 10/28/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62466 $246.00 10/28/22 01767 0 NPFBA S OUTSTANDING
1 62467 $930.60 10/28/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 62468 $439.00 10/28/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 62469 $800.00 10/28/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62470 $200.00 10/28/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 62471 $420.00 10/28/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62472 $1401.16 10/28/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 3 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 12/1/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62281-62350, 62371-62473 & 62865-62866- 10-16 to 10-31-22 (5186 : Disbursements - Dated10/16/22 Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 8

FUND TOTALS
-----------

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 205,102.02 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 0.00 22,697.10
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 11,248.91 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 19,665.02 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 12,768.07 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 1,383.09 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 27,838.89 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 1,965.08 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 12,033.80 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 292,004.88 22,697.10
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 9

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62865 - 62866
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62865 $563.48 10/31/22 01055 2 KONE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62866 $36013.54 10/31/22 04608 0 TRI COUNTIES BANK S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 2 TOTAL AMOUNT: 36,577.02
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY DEC0122 7:22 Page: 10

FUND TOTALS
-----------

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 28,971.31 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 130.06 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 244.63 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 1,071.69 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 4,959.33 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 1,200.00 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 36,577.02 0.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 12/1/2022 NO FY 2022-2023 CHECKS ISSUED ON 10/16-10/20/22.

TOTAL ISSUED CHECKS = $742,713.57 + $314,701.98 + $36,577.02 = $1,093,992.57 NOTE: 3 VOID AND REISSUE CHECKS $100 + $22,697.10 + $563.48 = $23,360.58

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62281-62350, 62371-62473 & 62865-62866- 10-16 to 10-31-22 (5186 : Disbursements - Dated10/16/22

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on November 28, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on November 28, 2022 (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 12

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 November 28, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
November 28, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on November 28, 2022 at 6:39 PM 6:30 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Ryan Marquez, Project Manager; Maria Aguilar, Dep. Director PW-Wastewater; Chris Martin, Motor Pool Supervisor; Louis Langi, Streets Superintendent; Paul Lavorini, PW Superintendent; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Craig Wittner, Asst. Fire Marshal, North County Fire Authority; Greg McFann, Contract Building Official, CSG Consultants; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 28, 2022

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley Mayor Bier invited retiring San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley to speak.

Mr. Horsley expressed his pleasure in being involved in Pacifica since he was a child and being responsible to his constituents in the County. He admired all his fellow elected officials, stating that they are blessed with the good job Pacificans have done in preserving the uniqueness of Pacifica.

Mayor Bier then read the proclamation honoring his tenure of 12 years as a San Mateo County Supervisor. She then had them take a picture.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked him, stating that, in addition to the items the mayor mentioned, Mr. Horsley helped the city get the Ohlone interpretive center and worked at getting the library in Pacifica. He stated that he served with him on LAFCO and Mr. Horsley informed him on a lot of trivia about San Mateo County that he did not know about. He asked him if he worked at the substation in El Granada or Moss Beach.

Mr. Horsley stated that he did and helped establish that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he thought he did, and he wished him the best in his retirement. He hoped they keep in touch in the future.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for helping her understand how things worked and mentioned that she made a few mistakes and he was kind enough to guide her back and she was grateful for that. She stated that his leadership with the library has been amazing and thanked him for the support with all the County libraries for such a long time. His leadership has helped inspire the communities to take necessary steps for funding to have world class libraries in every city in San Mateo County.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him for everything he has done for the county and the city.

She served with him on OneShoreline and went to every Home for All meeting and he was active with that as well as the library. She enjoyed talking to him as he was upfront and honest about everything. She appreciated him and thanked him for serving.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his service to the community was extraordinary. He referred to his interaction with him when he first met him and when he would bring up issues to Mr. Horsley, Mr. Horsley would turn the question back to him and ask him what he should do about it. He felt that was inspiring and empowering statement to someone who was trying to figure out what local governance meant. He stated that Mr. Horsley was instrumental in implementing training so police were trained in dealing with mental health everywhere in San Mateo County; saving lives was on his list because of the service he has invested in for many years. He thanked Mr. Horsley for inspiring him and saving lives and all his services to our community.

Mr. Horsley added that he got the County to institute Laura’s Law, a court mandated treatment for people who are resistive to treatment. He stated that it didn’t go as far as he would have liked, but they instituted that after a tragic case in Pacifica.

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he got a phone call that PCT did close escrow and that happened with the assistance of the County, Pacifica, and Half Moon Bay in a joint partnership.

Mr. Horsley asked if it was $100,000.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the county put in $100,000 and Half Moon Bay and Pacifica each put in $50,000.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to acknowledge Chris Hunter and thank him for his efforts in working with Don Horsley. Mr. Horsley agreed.

Mayor Bier thanked Mr. Horsley again for funding the prevention partnerships across the county, as that has been very special to her, basically her passion work for a long time; to have the funding from the County serve so many parts of the county brings prevention and early intervention work together and makes them connected across our cities. She also thanked him for the work with ending homelessness in our county and let him know that the system is working.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added his leadership with LGBTQIA and all of the services on the coastside, as pulling that together and having that site in Half Moon Bay, has helped all of us on the coastside as well as the Pride activities in Pacifica.

Mr. Horsley commented on the overlapping issues of mental health and gun violence. He applauded all that the city does for mental health and making people in this community feel involved and part and parcel of the community. He is grateful for the service he enjoyed over the past 12 years. He loved working with all of them.

Mayor Bier then opened public comment, and seeing no one, closed public comment.

There was a short break for refreshments.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if there were any public comments, and seeing none, closed public comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus accepted the consent calendar as stated.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, before she seconded, she had a tiny edit for the minutes.

She referred to packet page 16, under where it says Mayor Bier closed public comments, in the third line, she thought the word “speaking” is meant to be the word “seeking”. On packet page 22 where Mayor Bier “thanked that family”, she thought she meant it to read “thanked Pacifica’s Environmental Family”.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember Bier seconded the motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if the motion includes the edits.

Mayor Bier agreed that the motion included the edits.

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 28, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 10/01/22 through 10/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 10/01/22 through 10/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on November 14, 2022, Special Meeting held on November 17, 2022, Special Meeting held on November 19, 2022 and Special Meeting held on November 22, 2022.

3. Cancellation of December 27, 2022 City Council Meeting PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the December 27, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

4. Resolution for Coastal Conservancy Funding for Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving the application of specified State of California grant funds in the amount of $440,000 for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Danielle Lacampagne, San Mateo County, (by phone) stated she is with Citizens for San Mateo County Gun Buy Back, which is a group that raised funds for the buy backs. She stated that there will be an anonymous gun buy back in San Mateo County, December 3, in San Carlos at 1000 Skyway Road. She explained the process for getting $100 various types of guns and $50 for non-functioning guns. She mentioned details of the process.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus met with Councilmember-Elect Boles and did a tour of her house to see her zero energy, where she learned a lot. She attended the Council of Cities where they talked about what is happening in Belmont and their new facilities. She attended the Democrats’ event and the event for Jackie Speier hosted at the Pacifica Council Chambers.

She watched the PCT awards on TV and she understood that Small Business Saturday was a huge success.

Councilmember O’Neill attended some of the same meetings Councilmember Vaterlaus attended. He went to Palmetto for Small Business Saturday and saw a lot of people he knew.

He attended the LAFCo meeting and the San Mateo County Visitors Bureau mixer in Burlingame which was a big success. He attended the Commute.org board meeting. He attended the Jackie Speier event on November 19. He had a call on the future of the Library

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 28, 2022
Foundation. He came across an article regarding issues they are facing in Pacifica and explained that San Mateo has come up with a catalytic converter theft prevention program called Cat Guard.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated on November 15 she attended an economic opportunity study at the Community Center. She stated that there was a survey on the city’s website and complete it to give feedback on the economic opportunity study work done by Kosmont Industries. What she appreciated was the idea of breaking Pacifica up into several different business districts and looking at and maximizing what is unique and what is an opportunity in each of those districts. She stated that she and the mayor had a huge opportunity on November 17 to serve lunch at the Senior Center on Crespi. They had a good time, and the chef and senior services department were amazing. She stated that it was an inspiring event, and she was looking forward to the next opportunity. She attended a meeting of the Coastal Cities Group, and they were planning a meeting in Santa Barbara in January with the purpose of working with stakeholder groups on issues related to implementing the Coastal Act and taking it to the next step, cities working on the LCPs and the challenges they are facing, and groups like Surf Rider and Smart Coast have been invited to attend, etc. She attended the Democrats’ and our thank you to outgoing Congresswoman Jackie Speier.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck began by remembering Ukraine and it looks like they will be going through a very long winter shortly and his prayers are with them. He attended an Emergency Preparedness meeting with a great presentation on Zone Haven which is a relatively young tool to identify in a worst case scenario how to properly evacuate and how police and fire will be able to interact with the citizenry and help them figure out proper evacuation and let you know what is going on in your zone. He attended the North Coast County Water District meeting after the Emergency Preparedness meeting. He learned a lot about North Coast County water that he didn’t know before, and it was instructive for him to know how much he didn’t know. He mentioned some of the topics, such as the update on their district headquarters, etc. On learning about all of those topics, he thought it would be great to assign a Council liaison to North Coast County Water District to find out what is going on and report back to Council monthly. He attended Belmont Council of Cities and heard about their development projects.

He thought it was heartwarming to hear the electeds who will be departing their Council speak.

He thought it was like 100 years of collected stories and it was a lovely moment they all shared.

He attended the Democrats’ meeting with Jackie Speier before the special meeting here. He stated that early this afternoon, this was a Peninsula Clean Energy meeting with some of the board members and state Senator Josh Becker. He stated that there were good conversations around incentivizing electrification, such as doing credits for appliance installation. They discussed the regional Brown Act concern that, for regional bodies, it may be nice to retain the ability to use Zoom. They had a discussion around grid reliability, encouraging battery purchases to offset night time consumption and night time rates as it is more expensive at night and the pros and cons of micro grids. He thanked City Manager Woodhouse for successfully helping them navigate Measure Y as they went from a position where they weren’t sure whether they might have to lay off employees to being able to maintain our city services; among all staff that put in efforts, he wanted to recognize City Manager Woodhouse’s leadership.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, given our agenda on Reach codes, he attended the congestion management meeting earlier today, and they successfully applied for a grant and they were able to replace the stop lights and reconfigure the stop lights on Ralston Road, which in Belmont is a very busy street. After they configured the lights and replaced them, they were saving 252,000 tons of greenhouse gases by what they were able to do with the street lights.

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 28, 2022
Mayor Bier apologized to OSPAC for missing the meeting this month and she will be checking in with the chair to catch up. She attended the joint articulation meeting with the Pacifica School District, Jefferson Union High School District, the City and the water district. She also attended the economic opportunities meeting, and while it was a smaller crowd, the conversations around the table were rich and she appreciated hearing the conversations and appreciated staff for facilitating those conversations which she thought were important. She thought it was awesome serving the seniors Thanksgiving meals. She attended the Pacifica Pride planning meeting and the planning group is looking good, and she will keep the community updated as they move forward with that planning. She said goodbye to Jackie Speier, which was emotional and wonderful. In the evening, she checked PCT honors which was great and she thanked PCTV for everything they do. She stated that the Small Business Sharp Park event was great. She then read a letter of commendation to Chuck Pomicpic, who retired from Pacifica Fire Fighters.

She stated that they appreciated him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it was a well-deserved retirement.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was an amazing acknowledgment. She thanked him for his service.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that Pacifica is lucky we have fire fighters but we also have to share them under mutual aid and he is Mr. Pomicpic’s neighbor. He stated that, in the 1989 quake, he was called out to go to San Francisco and was fighting the fires in the Marina District.

He stated that it shows the quality of a person to leave their wife and young kids to fight a fire in another city.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added that she was grateful to him for everything he has done for Pacifica’s department all the way up through the ranks over the years. She thought the legacy leaves Pacifica much safer and she wishes him well in retirement.

Councilmember Vaterlaus reminded everyone that they have the Rockaway tree lighting on Sunday from 4:00 to 7:00 and Santa will be arriving in a fire truck and there are a lot of activities for everyone to do. She was talking to Chris at the garbage company and the garbage that people are leaving out is excessive and she reminded the citizens that everyone has to pay for that: when people leave trash out and it gets picked up, it is going to cause rate increases and it is dramatically more than it has been in the past. She asked that they do it the right way.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, referring to trash, they were talking about freezers full of meat left on streets, refrigerators being dumped; this is going to cost every ratepayer in Pacifica.

She stated that, if you see something, say something; this has to be curtailed and the only way to do it is to catch people and the only way to figure it out is if you see someone, describe the truck and she asked that the community rally together on this.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that there is a lot of hauling companies and you hire them to haul stuff out of your yard. He stated that some unscrupulous ones just dump it on the street, but in other cities, they dump it on the street. He stated that they are making money while it is costing the taxpayers’ money. He referred to the tree lighting ceremony and the city is sponsoring a holiday parade on Sunday, December 4, at 3:00 pm on Palmetto.

Mayor Bier stated that there are also festivities at the Community Center on Friday evening where there will be light the building, the elf market will begin, thus a lot of things going on during the weekend.

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 28, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was complimentary with the activities on Sunday.

There is the Holly Jollypalooza at Eureka Square Center that will be supporting lots of small businesses.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are continuing their work on improving the audio system in the Council Chambers and have received a bid for new microphones, as well as other audio equipment to improve the sound. They don’t know the timeline is because of the tendency for electronic gear to be backordered. He reiterated a couple of things mentioned.

One is the caller in oral communications who had mentioned the San Mateo County anonymous gun buy back on December 3, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in San Carlos; there is a flyer in person and they will be pushing the information out in their weekly electronic in their weekly electronic newsletter. He referred to a couple of economic developments, i.e., the Small Business Saturday was a huge success. NBC Bay Area did a story on it and if you read the printed version of the story, it highlights Pacifica and the number of businesses that participated and the crowd. He referred to economic development efforts for small businesses, which our Economic Development program committee are very focused on, stating there is an upcoming business resource and networking night which will be presented by the Economic Development Committee on November 30 at Table Wine beginning at 7:00 p.m. He stated that it was a pleasure for him to help serve Thanksgiving lunch to the seniors as it was a packed house with over 90 participants enjoying that lunch. He thanked the Community Center staff and the chef for pulling that off. He called Interim Chief Stratton to say some words about the police department of the quarter, adding that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck had requested more information, and he is here to make comments about Officer Tran.

Interim Police Chief Stratton recognized Officer Tran for employee of the quarter, July through September 2022. He read the recognition.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

5. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments, including amendments to require building electrification (Reach Codes), underground utility installation, and expanded geotechnical hazard evaluation.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code), 4 (Electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code), 7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code, 8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), and 9 (Reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto; Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) and making certain amendments thereto; and Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 28, 2022
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Margo Meiman, Pacifica, stated she wanted to explain why building electrification is important, giving data on various cities in the U.S., and specifically Pacifica, on this issue, and highlighted Peninsula Clean Energy’s website as an important resource of information.

Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, (by phone) stated she supported the motion to adopt the ordinance on the 2022 addition of the Reach codes, and shared her information and thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he would like to make the motion on this one. Before that, he referred to the caller talking about the net energy metering NEM 3.0; he mentioned talking to Senator Josh Becker and amongst the issues discussed, they talked about the NEM 3.0, and he let her know that they are in discussion with our state representative and if PCE reaches out to various city councils to send a letter, he will be happy to bring that to Council. He was also looking forward to goal setting in March to discuss where they might check in with existing codes, and he was watching the City of San Mateo on that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code), 4 (Electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code), 7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code), 8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), and 9 (Reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto; Repealing and replacing article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) and making certain amendments thereto; and Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)”; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

CONSIDERATION

6. Update on Highway1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Update Report on Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project
PW Director Petersen began the staff report and introduced Lynn McIntyre, Project Manager, AECOM, to continue the staff report.

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 28, 2022
Project Manager McIntyre completed the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood that, to continue receiving the money and move forward on the overcrossing project, they have to study the Milagra on ramp. He asked if he was on track so far.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively, adding that the first phase of the feasibility study did look at the Milagra on ramp; part of the reason it needed to be looked at was that it was noted that putting that on ramp did reduce congestion at the Manor intersection based on the traffic studies. As discussed, it will ultimately be the Council’s decision what, if any, project they want to move forward.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to make sure it as clear as he can make it that, unless they are studying both, they aren’t going to have the money going forward to get to the one if that is the option they ultimately choose.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood from the various dates presented in the report it is essentially, that if and when they are going to make the determination of whether or not they are going to do both or just one, the timeline suggests it is August 2024 when they will be coming to that conclusion one way or the other. He asked if he was reading it correctly.

PW Director Petersen stated he was correct, adding that, at that time, they will have all the information so that would be the time that kind of decision will get made.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referenced feedback and emails he received but would not ask now.

He wanted to be clear that his understanding is, and which seems to be confirmed that, unless they are studying both, they don’t have money to go forward even if they decide only to do one and that the time in which they are going to be making that decision looks like August 2024; for those having an interest in breaking this apart and breaking a piece off, even if they were to go that direction, they won’t be making that determination until August 2024.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to the parking and asked, because they are taking away the diagonal parking and moving it to parallel parking, what is the loss of parking.

PW Director Petersen stated that the design team is still exploring options to maintain parking in the Manor Drive area. One option being considered is to change the parking in front of Mazzetti’s to parallel parking to accommodate striped Class 2 bike lane along Manor Drive east of Oceana. They also have been looking at changes to parking in front of Walgreens to parallel parking to accommodate combined right and through lane and a shoulder by play along Manor Drive west of Palmetto. That said, the team is also looking at maintaining the diagonal parking, knowing that it takes longer for people to pull in and out of parallel spaces. She stated that maintaining diagonal parking is not off the table and she believes she is asking about a net loss of parking and she didn’t think they have that number now because the design is still being refined.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, if she is not mistaken, they are in the coastal zone when they are talking about the side of Manor where Walgreens is. When they are talking about Mazzetti’s side, they are not in the coastal zone. On the coastal zone side, they don’t get to have a net loss of parking. If they are going to lose parking, they need to find some somewhere

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 28, 2022
else so there is no net loss. Ideally, there is a gain, but they are trying to put bike lanes, etc. in there and she was glad to hear that the diagonal parking is still on the table.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, that at the end of the smoke shop, beauty salon, and O’Reilley’s auto body part, whether there is an empty lot there. He asked, if you eliminate the diagonal parking on Manor, whether it would be possible to use some of the money to purchase that lot for city parking lots to make up for the loss of parking.

PW Director Petersen thought that was a great idea and something they are looking at and thinking about as to, if they lose parking, how will they try to regain that parking. She stated that this just a study phase and they are thinking of all the options available and, if there is a way for the city to purchase property, possibly for a project, or possibly some widening of the roadway to allow for additional parking as those are things they would be looking at so they can minimize any kind of loss.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that it was a possibility. He asked, when they do the traffic study, if they could look at the impact of a northbound on ramp and how much less traffic would be going by Ocean Shore School.

Ms. McIntyre understood and she didn’t have the detailed notes about the traffic study coming up, but that would definitely be considered with both of the alternatives what the traffic levels would look like in that area.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked them to show the timeline on the PowerPoint again and reiterated that the traffic engineering study takes place in February 2023.

Project Manager McIntyre stated that there are two sets of traffic studies, one done during the project initiation document phase, and that is a preliminary detailed traffic study that is largely based on existing data and this is the stage of the project when the traffic engineering team works with CalTrans and the city to determine basic things about the parameters of the performance that they are looking for with this project in terms of congestion relief and the exact parameters of the more detailed study that will take place in the next phase. She stated that, in the next phase of the project approval and environmental document phase, there is a very detailed traffic analysis called the traffic operations analysis report and it basically includes collection of new data such as traffic counts and sometimes other data collection for regional traffic movement and modeling of future traffic operations using county model, etc. She stated that will be a much more detailed traffic report but that will be in the next phase and she would expect it to be done by about this time next year.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded in the fall of 2023 is when that more detailed one would be taken.

Project manager McIntyre stated that they would expect it in that timeframe.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated on the one happening in February, and they don’t know when the exact date it will be done, but the week of February 20, the elementary schools in Pacifica are closed, and she recommended that it not take place February 20 through February 24 as you will not get an accurate picture of traffic, even if there was a higher level study at this point in time. She emphasized the detail that they aren’t doing it in the summer, getting ready for this time a year from now with the super detailed one as they don’t have summer school at that site, in addition to the fact that Skyline College and none of the high schools are in session,

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 28, 2022
so traffic impacts are definitely lessened in Pacifica during the summer months. She stated that Councilmember O’Neill has taught her over the years that it matters when you do the study.

Project Manager McIntyre thanked her for that information. She stated that, in February, this preliminary traffic study will have been completed already and they wouldn’t be collecting data at that time. She stated that the traffic engineering firm, Fehr and Peers, is very experienced with when to collect new traffic data and understand not to do it when schools aren’t in session.

Councilmember O’Neill thought Council would like to look at every month when PG&E puts in a fund for undergrounding utilities and, if we are taking and digging up all the streets, bridges, etc., and that is one of the main entry ways into Pacifica, and see about undergrounding utilities in that intersection at that corner, especially the number of truck that lose their brakes coming down Manor. He thought that could be part of the report, as he didn’t know how much money is going to be in that fund as it takes years.

PW Director Petersen stated that was a great a suggestion and they will take a look at it. She believes that the city borrowed an advance on that fund and she didn’t recall there being a lot of money in that fund, but she will take a look at that as it is a great idea and it would be beneficial.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he can add a little bit of detail as they were talking about this: They are at a deficit in that PG&E funding as he believes that it is in the $75,000 range and they have been paying it off for many years and, by the time construction were to occur on this, they would have some of that allocation building up.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she has one last question. She asked if, in the more detailed study phase, the consultant would be taking into consideration and working with our Planning Department on whatever we end up adopting as our RHNA allocation and the sites they are looking where additional housing might be built in Pacifica, if those items might be factored into projections for traffic.

Project Manager McIntyre stated that she will ask the traffic consultant about that as she thought they typically try to be very mindful of local development projects, especially with regard to the project area and she knows they take into account housing and employment increases as accounted for in Planned Bay Area 2050 or whatever the most current Planned Bay Area is and she has seen in the traffic operations analysis report detailed lists of not only transportation projects in the area but also development projects that would affect traffic circulation in the project area.

Councilmember O’Neill stated it brings up a thought. If they are looking for future planning for traffic, how does the traffic planner allocate the fact that an ADU can basically go in every one of those backyards.

Project Manager McIntyre stated that she would have to forward that question to the traffic consultant as she didn’t know.

Councilmember O’Neill understood that the landscape has changed and he was curious.

Mayor Bier asked them to bring up the slide that shows the project area. She stated that there have been people in the community talking about roundabouts and focusing on Oceana and Paloma and she wanted to be clear that the section is outside of this project area. She asked if she was correct.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 28, 2022
Project Manager McIntyre stated she was correct.

PW Director Petersen added what was noted in the report that, during the first phase feasibility study, that area was looked at and it was determined that, putting any type of on ramp down in that area made no impact to the congestion at Manor and that was why it was taken off the table, i.e., it wasn’t doing anything to help the congestion at Manor and that was the goal of this project, to stop and minimize congestion in that area.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, thanked PW Director Petersen for the good presentation. He then referred to the planning study and shared his positive thoughts on this issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica (by phone) thanked them for the presentation. She had some questions and concerns regarding parking and housing elements and possible other options to consider. She looked forward to working with them for the next steps.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that funding was originally part of a measure voted on by San Mateo County citizens in either 1988 or 1998 and in the original documents of the ballot measure and he didn’t think there was a lot of leeway for the city. He thought the only other project Pacifica would get was the widening of the highway. He stated that Council majority at that point voted no for the highway widening and gave up a lot of the benefits available now, such as a bike lane, sidewalk, breakdown lane, emergency lane with a centered median instead of concrete I-beams that while you are idling on Highway 1 you would be able to see public art.

He stated that once this money is voted down, etc., it is gone and he thought the money meant for widening of Highway 1 was probably a graded overcrossing in San Carlos or San Mateo, as they just finished an under crossing for 25th Avenue in San Mateo. He wanted to caution future Councilmembers after he is gone that it has taken 35 or 40 years to get this money; they are not making a decision that will be fixed or changed in six months but deciding what the traffic and estimating the usage of traffic in that neighborhood for the next 30-40 years and, given the density the state is forcing upon cities, the density could almost double because of an ADU in every unit, empty lots being developed, etc. He urged caution for the final decision on this project.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him for reminding them about why he will be sorely missed.

He had a question regarding a handful of emails they got and he wanted the city to have the opportunity to respond to the suggestion that a roundabout at Paloma and Oceana could be beneficial. He stated that a different commenter stated that it won’t affect the traffic at the Manor overcrossing which is why they aren’t considering it. He asked if they can elaborate on that or give them more reasons why that is likely not going to be a solution in this instance or can they study it in conjunction with the other two things.

PW Director Petersen stated that the first phase did study that. In addition to the key element which she mentioned previously is that it makes no impact at the congestion at Manor which is what the entire project is about; the other element related to that is needing to get the right-ofway to put that in. She stated that it is going to be a very difficult project, but that isn’t what excludes it, but that it doesn’t provide any relief of congestion at Manor and basically, to think of it in a different way, it is an extraneous project and doesn’t do anything to benefit the project.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 28, 2022
Ultimately, if Council were to try to move forward with that and went to CalTrans and told them they want to build the Manor Drive overcrossing and the roundabout at Paloma, and they would ask what that is doing for the Manor Drive overcrossing and they can show the traffic studies that it doesn’t help the congestion and they will say that the city can fund it themself as they won’t help. She concluded that there is no way they would get funding for it, even if the city decided, for some reason, that it was something they would like to have. Ultimately CalTrans is looking for is the facts and data, and that data needs to show whatever improvement they are funding is going to improve the congestion for the Manor overcrossing which is the project they have identified that they need and is important to the city.

Mayor Bier thanked them for the report.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

7. Approval of Amendment to Agreement with GHD, Inc for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Third Amendment to Task Order 1 (Attachment 1) between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. for planning, engineering, and environmental services for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project in the amount of $856,448.34; and authorize the City Manager to execute said amendment.

PW Director Petersen introduced the staff report then turned over to Project Manager Ryan Marquez.

Project Manager Marquez presented the staff report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what type of popups they are talking about, such as Farmer’s Market, etc.

Project Manager Marquez stated that it would be similar, go to the people instead of having the people come to us. They have done a Farmer’s Market in the past for other projects, such as Fog Fest, Dog Surfing, and we want to find those places that bring in a crowd of people from the region as well as Pacifica.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to verify her understanding on packet page 128 that the items listed under the community and stakeholder development is part of phase 2a and it is part of the funding request he is asking for at this meeting.

Project Manager Marquez responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if, approving this recommendation is to work with GHD and, as such, how much influence he has over who does the community outreach. She thought it went very well last time.

Project Manager Marquez wasn’t sure he was following her question.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there was a subcontractor that conducted the public meetings with her and the mayor when they were on the subcommittee.

Project Manager Marquez confirmed Kearns and West and the entire team they had in phase 1

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 28, 2022
is coming back and they will be involved.

Mayor Bier opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when looking at the report, he was confirming the time of the year they do the process and he found it impressive reading through the report regarding the scope of the work going into making sure this project, which may possibly be the most important infrastructure project for Pacifica over the next several decades and he was impressed with the work that will be going into the project and he thanked the team. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s concerns on the way some of the meetings went the last time or asked if he was misreading.

Councilmember Beckmeyer confirmed he was misreading as she thought it went very well, considering we were forced by the Governor’s order to do everything online. They didn’t get the popups, table tops, etc. but despite that, there was an interactivity added to the process that she thought it was excellent as well as high quality of restating of public comments at the end of each of the meetings that she thought that was skillful. That was her concern, that as much as we are contacting GHD, and as she learned from the City Manager, we don’t get to pick the subcontractor generally.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was glad he misheard her and glad the original team is getting back together.

Councilmember Beckmeyer also asked, at a future time, if they will need information from Council about the preference or not for forming a Council subcommittee for this phase.

Project Manager Marquez stated that, as planned out now, if this is approved, they will probably kick off in the first couple of months of the new year, in parallel with a lot of the design, they will come up with a communication plan and bring it back to Council. At that time, the communication plan would or would not recommend to continue that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he can redefine for her PSE, Plan, Specifications and...

Project Manager Marquez states it was Estimate.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, if she understands it, the estimate for the entirety of this phase is around $6 million.

Project Manager Marquez stated that, for the full phase 2, that is correct.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they had some of that set aside already and some budgeted already. She stated that, if she correctly interpreting packet page 129, the dollar amount they are looking for is $4,651,830. She asked what the unfunded amount is.

Project Manager Marquez thought it would be about $4.5 million.

Mayor Bier stated that, touching on the ad hoc committee, she was glad to see that and hearing some of the statement regarding reaching out to people in the area, etc., and she thought it might be good to have an ad hoc committee for public outreach. She appreciated her bringing that up.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 28, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer had one last question. She noted, in the proposal attached, the timeline referenced to the state land commission and she didn’t see them listed in the concluding paragraph.

Project Manager Marquez referred to what she may be thinking, and he stated that there will be some analysis done where they are putting buoys out and the radars out on the pier, and that will need state land commission approval. At this time, they don’t believe they need to reach out to state lands for a lease at this point but they will need to do it in the final permitting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer understood, and then requested Council consider looking at the recommended action (which she read). She then asked if it was appropriate to make it crystal clear by adding “and community outreach” or “community engagement”. She realized that it is included into all of the pages attached, but she asked if it would be incorrect to include that in this sentence. She was also asking Council for their thoughts.

Project Manager Marquez stated that he didn’t have any issue with that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Director Petersen doesn’t either, as well as City Attorney.

If not, she was ready to make a motion.

Mayor Bier asked if they can clarify one more time where the money is coming from that they are discussing at this meeting to be sure it is crystal clear to the community.

Project Manager Marquez stated that, in June 2022, the budget, as well as capital improvement, was approved by Council and there was $1 million allocated from Fund 38, disaster accounting fund, for this project, and there are remaining funds from the state grant in Assembly Bill 74.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Third Amendment to Task Order 1 (Attachment 1) between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc., for planning, engineering, environmental services and community outreach for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project in the amount of $856,448.34; and authorize the City Manager to execute said amendment; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

8. Purchase of City Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 PROPOSED ACTION:

Approve the Following Actions Related to City Vehicle Purchases:
1) Approve Purchase of City Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for $1,922,000, including a 3% cost escalation factor for a total of $1,979,660. 2) Adopt the Resolution to Approve FY 22-23 budget amendment to:
• Appropriate $1,979,660 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for purchase of City vehicles.
• Transfer $500,000 from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for purchases related to Wastewater Operations.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 28, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated she was joined by Streets Superintendent Louis Langi, Fields Services Manager Paul Lavorini, Motor Pool Manager Chris Martin and Interim Police Chief Kirk Stratton, and then presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill asked how long ago they replaced the Vac Con.

PW Director Petersen stated that the Vac Con is ten years old.

Councilmember O’Neill asked about another piece of equipment they purchased within 4-5 years.

PW Director Petersen clarified and stated the Vac Con was definitely ten years old and it is seeing its age.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated a couple of months ago, PCE was talking about offering fleet upgrade services to organizations interested in upgrading to electric. He asked the City Manager to look into it and it appears from the staff report that they did look into it, and he asked if they can take a moment to elaborate on the resources they found from PCE that were available. He wanted to express his gratitude that he looked into it and, for these gas powered vehicle, they are a year out coming into us and he understands with the supply chain being what it is, it would take longer for the electric vehicles. He stated that, in following the media, the Ford F150 is now available in electric form and he was sure there is a huge backlog on people trying to get those and that translates into what will be a long process in updating city vehicles, especially the specialized vehicles that will take longer to have the electric equivalence. He asked if they could tell them what they found out with the PCE resources.

PW Director Petersen stated, that regarding PCE resources, there are resources to look into converting and what they are looking at and offering is what she was talking about, i.e., the EV infrastructure and how you get that in place to support an EV fleet once all the testing has been done. She stated that before that can happen, they have to start planning for the EV infrastructure they are going to have and how are they going to support these first responder vehicles during electrical outages. She thought one thing that was very compelling is that they are offering up to $25,000 for a project to help you start looking at that and start figuring out how you are going to do this and move it forward. This is something that, if they were to do it, they would bring in an expert to help them and show them how to get from one point to a big goal that everyone will want to be there. They want to start thinking about it and they want to help moving them in that direction.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he hopes they can take advantage of their help but they might have to start incorporating electric vehicle chargers as a part of the vehicle replacement plan at some point. He was struck by what she alluded to in the presentation that Public Works looks for smaller equipment available and is battery powered, such as blowers, and the equipment’s capability must be with the department’s operation needs, etc. He was reminded of our new assemblymember Marc Berman who was one of the co-authors of AB 1346 about what he is calling SOREs or small off-road engines. He asked if she could elaborate on that as he understands that, by 2024, the SOREs need to be all electric going forward. He stated, along with having to invest in charging stations for EVs, sooner than later, investment in batteries also has to be a consideration. If the grid goes down, such as mentioned during discussion of Reach codes, it is another instance where the city’s going to presumably start looking at battery backup and battery power investment in order to continue running the items that need to be electric.

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 28, 2022
PW Director Petersen thanking him for bringing up that point earlier so they can do more research into it. She stated that the bill was signed by the Governor about a year ago and implementation of that bill started in July 2022: what they want to happen in California is that all small motors, including lawn mowers and moving forward are going to be not gas anymore starting in 2024. They are saying that, at that point, they expect the manufacturing to be in place and everything starting be produced that way. She stated that they have set a goal and are pushing us towards it, similar to SB1383 with organics. She stated that there was definitely some relaxation, especially with the organic procurement rules, because sometimes they also have to see what the reality is and are the manufacturers going to get there by 2024. Right now, that is what the bill says and they have been looking at these smaller pieces of equipment and are already purchasing those as battery power. They will continue to do that and with the bill out there, everybody is going to be there, whether it happens in 2024 or two years after as all of California will eventually be there and we need to support those pieces of equipment.

Mayor Bier opened up public comments.

Margo Meiman, Pacifica, stated that, in acknowledging everything Director Petersen just presented, she wondered if this was a missed opportunity for electric vehicles as well as help to meet the city’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. She expressed her thoughts and questions on the issue.

Rick Nahass, Pacifica, (by phone) thought the presentation seemed to discourage the purchase of electrical vehicles, and he shared his thoughts and questions on the issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck looked through the list of vehicles of Public Works vehicles that were specialized and Police Department vehicles that were emergency response vehicles and asked, if not this round, have they identified any vehicles that are appropriate to be electrified by their nature.

PW Director Petersen appreciated his question as well as the public’s questions. She stated that they have been purchasing hybrids, and the answer to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s question is yes. She stated that they should be purchasing vehicles every year; there will be a lot of opportunities for the city and vehicles that are sedans to be looking to going from a hybrid to a fully electric vehicle, and that opportunity could be as early as next year. She stated that there are opportunities and they continue to evaluate it as their goal is to push in that direction and it could be a next step for those hybrid vehicles they have been purchasing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned that the PCE program was designed to help somewhere between 6 and 7 organizations with the first round of funding. He asked if they found any element of it that they can take advantage of at this time. He did understand that they will have further opportunities when we have rounds of funding our vehicles that will lend themselves to more fully electric vehicles.

PW Director Petersen thought they would need to have a conversation with them related to it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated the final question he heard was about 2021 public infrastructure funding which related more to charging stations and getting that infrastructure in place, a process that is not inexpensive.

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 28, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that was her understanding but she hasn’t heard much beyond that.

City Manager Woodhouse added that a lot of the funding trickled down from the federal bills, etc., and are manifesting themselves now. California Consulting is the granting firm that we use, and EV charging infrastructure was on that list to look at and see what the grant opportunities are and work their way down to a level we can apply for. It will happen more in the future, but there was no direct, clear source now.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as they go forward and start identifying those opportunities, that is another opportunity to deepen our relationship with our good friends in Congress, Kevin Mullin and Anna Eshoo.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked the City Manager for looking into the electric vehicle side of it. She described examples of the difficulty of purchasing electric vehicles. She thought that, as we move along and buy vehicles in the future, we can look more into electric when they are produced more than they are now.

Mayor Bier thought they needed some language somehow to assure that, moving forward, they know what it is going to look like for us so that we have a road map of how we are going to eventually move into the all-electric vehicle fleet. They don’t know how long it will take, but they need to start having those conversations now so they have the language in place. If they can have that conversation with PCE, they can fall back on the Stanford study where they had a nice road map for us to put some EV chargers installed across the city. They are doing the Reach codes, but she feels that they have to do everything they can moving forward to assure their direction. They have to have it in writing in a road map so our community can follow along and bring us information and resources that they clearly have that we don’t and along the way we can take advantage of all of the opportunities out there for us to move forward. She understands that all these vehicles are necessary now. She stated that, moving forward, we have to be super clear and have it part of our climate action plan which is really important. She stated that it is not that everyone will want to be electric but they are going to have to be. She stated that they just have to figure out how to get there.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was where she was going. She asked the City Attorney if it was possible for them to add a whereas to the resolution. She pushed the City Manager on whether they needed to do this now and he assured her that they need to do that. She stated that Director Petersen restated it in terms of increasing costs and they have bid on these already that we will lose and they will go away and we will have to start over and it will definitely cost more.

PW Director Petersen confirmed, adding that they talked about that in the report as there are a number of vehicles, including police vehicles, that they have been able to get them to hold their costs and they have been waiting. They told them they were coming to the meeting tonight and hoped to get the approval. She stated that they are locked in and they want to stay locked in because they feel that prices are going to rise significantly over the next year.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to Mayor Bier’s point that they need a road map and what they heard at this meeting anecdotally from Councilmember Vaterlaus and from the presentation about the inability to purchase these vehicles due to supply chain. She wondered if they can’t acknowledge that in a whereas, i.e., “whereas electrical vehicles are not available” and/or “whereas electric vehicles do not exist at the present for the heavy equipment purposes

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 28, 2022
for which they are needed”. She stated that they need to be internally consistent, and they are reminded that the climate action plan is eight years out of date and she knows there is going to be a lot of expectation from the community to heavy up on our goals for that. She stated, if the first thing we do is not state anything about electric vehicles in our resolution, it seems like we aren’t serious, but she thinks they are. She stated that it is not her goal to delay this process for reasons she stated and was confirmed, but it is her goal to figure out a way to get some language in there acknowledging challenges, thus the impossibility of obtaining electric vehicles presently and secondly is there a place in the recommended action to add a third item to it stating Council’s intention and direction to staff to introduce an electric vehicle replacement plan as part of their annual vehicle replacement.

City Attorney Kenyon offered some initial thoughts, i.e., what she is requesting does not need to be in the resolution but just be a verbal direction that would be noted in the minutes to staff to do whatever staff needs to do in terms of analysis and research to assure that electric vehicles are included in our fleet at the earliest opportunity possible. Because this resolution is focused on actual purchase of city vehicles and they are not purchasing electric vehicles, it is hard to include it in this, but what is normally done is that, after Council adopts the resolution as part of the agenda item, they can give additional direction to staff as part of the minutes to do further analysis to assure that electric vehicles are purchased and included in our fleet at the earliest opportunity.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for that. She stated that this is why she wanted it in the resolution, i.e., the simple reason is that, when items come to them again, very often the previous resolution that relate to that topic are copied or referenced in the packet that they receive but the minutes of this meeting won’t be. She is trying to find a way to honor what the mayor said, and if the mayor is okay with giving direction to staff, then she should stop pushing on this point. She also wondered if Fund 72 was a fund they can use for that or is it only for the capital purchase of the actual asset.

PW Director Petersen stated that it was historically only used for vehicle replacement. She knows that doing EV fleet infrastructure will be a huge cost and they probably want to go in another direction and try to identify funding through other sources that will be more readily available as they continue to move forward into this electric vehicle age.

Mayor Bier thought, if PW Director Petersen can plan to be a huge part of the discussion in our climate action plan update, they want to make sure that Public Works is part of that discussion so they have language in the Climate Action Plan moving forward.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that is one thing he was going to suggest, as they are really talking about a policy approach and direction related to purchasing policy and a climate action plan item could be to develop such a vehicle purchasing policy and when they get to that, it could certainly be discussed. He stated that, if it is Council’s preference, they could add a whereas into this resolution that says “whereas the city has examined available vehicles and looking at electric vehicles for these priority purchases and they will continue to do so in the future”. He thought one of the challenges is that this market is going to change dramatically over the next couple of years and he can’t sit there and predict what the purchasing price preference needs to be for an electric vehicle, Ford F150 versus a gas one, at this point in time.

The real policy decision in the future is going to be that we know we don’t have enough money to buy and replace the vehicles that they need to replace so how much money should be set aside and used to buy more expensive vehicles and less of those. He stated that was an important policy discussion and decision; thus, a future step that could be identified in the

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 28, 2022
Climate Action Plan is to work on that and have that policy conversation with Council. The market and trend is going to push them that way anyway, as they are unfortunately not a city with a big bank account that can be an early adopter to technology when we have very fundamental needs on our vehicles. They can think aspirationally about that and plan for it.

They have not just the vehicles but the EV infrastructure and it all coming together, with the Climate Action Plan as a vehicle to be thinking about that at a high level planning perspective.

Mayor Bier stated that they were planning on doing that anyway.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, and he didn’t recall if there were already policies in the climate action plan that address vehicles. City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify if it is the Council’s preference to leave the resolution as is or add a whereas that says something about we’re cognizant of the need for this transition, they looked at that but it is not part of this purchasing package, etc. They could add general language like that, and they could leave it to him to develop that.

Mayor Bier asked if they can add that to the motion.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.

City Manager Woodhouse added that after the whereas that says “the city desires to purchase vehicles from the vehicle replacement fund 72 for immediate urgent needs” and “whereas in looking at these purchases the city evaluator evaluated the feasibility of electric vehicle purchases and for this purchase none were found feasible due to the kind of equipment” or something like that.

Mayor Bier added language on completing and continuing evaluations.

City Manager Woodhouse reiterated adding to the whereas statement “and will continue in future vehicle purchases”. They will always look at the hybrid and EV options and make that operational decision and present that to Council as part of the package. He stated that they will note on getting direction from Council that, when they look at the Climate Action Plan, vehicle purchases and EV infrastructure will be an important part of that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they needed to add a third item about Council direction.

City Attorney Kenyon explained that they did not.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved approval of the Following Actions Related to City Vehicle Purchases; 1) approve Purchase of City Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for $1,922,000, including a 3% cost escalation factor for a total of $1,979,660; 2) adopt the Resolution to Approve FY 22-23 budget amendment to appropriate $1,979,660 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for purchase of City vehicles and transfer $500,000 from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for purchases related to Wastewater Operations; and 3) adopt the resolution as amended to include language as amended by the City Manager regarding electric vehicles; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 28, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

9. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt resolution approving the First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.

City Attorney Kenyon presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, stated that he was representing Therese Dyer who was not able to attend as her son was in the hospital, and he shared her concerns about City Manager Woodhouse not being there for the public and hiding information from the public. He mentioned her testimony previously regarding negative actions he directed at her, and he was opposed to the raise.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, being inspired by public comment, she would like to state for the record that she has never seen City Manager Woodhouse display anything but the highest standards of ethical conduct in carrying out his duties as City Manager. She wasn’t there, and the public speaker wasn’t there, so she can’t speak to hearsay on what did or didn’t occur, but she knows him and has worked with him for almost four years and does not believe that what they heard in public comment occurred as stated.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer, adding that he would tend to err on the side of her sentiment. While he will not be agreeing largely with the public commenter, what he heard and wanted to say is that he is sorry to hear about Ms. Dyer and what her son is going through and that she has to be with her son at this time under these circumstances and would appreciate sending his regards to her. He stated that City staff are exceptional; Council could not direct anything to happen if staff didn’t make it happen and, in terms of City Manager Woodhouse’s role, he was fully cognizant of that. He stated that some of the things they have accomplished under extraordinary circumstances, from his perspective, in terms of staff resource and funding, it is hard for him to imagine, under other leadership, what they could have accomplished. He referred to the civic center renovation project where staff had been working under health concerns due to mold and lack of a bathroom and opened up walls and seeing the beams that could have fallen on their heads at any moment because of serious deterioration.

He was happy that City Manager Woodhouse was at the helm to facilitate those buildings becoming safe for staff to work, as well as accomplishing a General Plan update after almost a decade and a half. He added Measure Y: They were looking at a fairly dire economic state next year if not for Measure Y; City Manager Woodhouse spearheaded that effort which was successful and, as a result, our city will be fiscally sustainable. He stated that was an extraordinary list of the top 3, plus the ridiculous amount of work and knowledge that he has that goes into everything else. He stated that he was happy to vote for this. Right now, he is looking at a year of accomplishment and professionalism and apparently staff feels very well-led by him.

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 28, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus also thanked him for all the things that have gotten accomplished in the past several years. This year especially, there are such big items, i.e., the housing element, Sharp Park Specific Plan, General Plan, lack of employees that left and trying to hire new employees - they are all big issues and to still be at a range that is 5% under what the other city managers in comparable cities are being paid, they appreciated this amount they are granting him.

Mayor Bier stated that she has been worried about Therese Dyer as she hasn’t been there, and she was happy that he mentioned her and she will make a point of reaching out to her. She then wanted to talk about City Manager Woodhouse. She stated that what she has seen from him in the past four years and what he has taught her is how to lead under pressure, make staff feel valued, supported and empowered, make Council feel valued, supported and empowered and the brilliance behind his vision 2025. She has learned so much from him about the economic viability of our city. She feels he deserves this and more, and she thinks they are lucky to have him; there are many people who understand this and have seen how he has pushed our city forward.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has worked between permanent and temporary city managers and four or five school superintendents, and they are the CEO of the corporation called Pacifica. He stated that it is a service industry where 90-95% of all the expenses are personnel costs. In looking at the turnover of city managers and things you hear and read about the past two years, he thinks City Manager Woodhouse has done a very good job and he echoes everything his colleagues have said. He thinks they are fortunate to have City Manager Woodhouse as the city manager, and he has not kicked the can down the road like a lot of previous city managers and City Councils. He grabbed the bull horn of the General Plan, he did the Sharp Park Specific Plan, the rotting city hall. City Manager Woodhouse is open to ideas, as he has brought several ideas that he has looked at that. He has dismissed some but has looked at others and suggested they move forward and that is his job. He stated that he would make a motion.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt resolution approving the First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 28, 2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-28-2022 Regular Meeting [Revision 1] (5218 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen P.E., Director of Public Works
650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• Failure of the sea wall and promenade on Beach Blvd. (in the vicinity of Santa Maria Avenue), which have been repaired, from the January 22, 2016 storm. • The 300 & 400 block of Esplanade experience episodic bluff erosion. In recent years (2016-2018), the bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• Undermining of a seven-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of 700 Palmetto Avenue from the January 22, 2016, storm. Construction is scheduled to restart in February of 2021 due to project delays.
• A failure of the seawall and promenade on Beach Blvd. in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier was discovered on December 16, 2020. Ocean waves, king tides, and high swells undermined a portion of the sea wall and created a large void (25’x25”) between the pier abutment seawall connection, affecting the sidewalk and promenade.

City staff and contractors stabilized and repaired the large void on January 22, 2021. 3 Packet Pg. 36
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
The sidewalk and promenade restoration were completed on February 22, 2021.

Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City by the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. On May 13, 2022, the City received a Coastal Development Permit waiver from the California Coastal Commission to perform this work. A bid opening for the repair was held on June 9, 2022, and the City received one bid, which was $2 million above the project budget. Council rejected the bid and authorized the project to be rebid.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 1) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage had occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with November 14, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.
3 Packet Pg. 37
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment for Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 38
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment for Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (5214 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of "ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment for Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (5214 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Nelson Schlater, P.E., Engineering Manager - Wastewater Public Works (650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach. After Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire. The engines were destroyed, and the pumps needed to be replaced.

The damage to the pump station threatened and continues to threaten the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding without an operational pump station.

The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City.

The proclamation is subject to ratification by the City Council within 7 days, pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code. The proclamation of the existence of a local emergency further designates the City Manager or designated representative to act on behalf of the City for public assistance and for individual assistance for purpose of receipt, processing and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available State and Federal assistance.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City must comply with Public Contract Code Section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency. 4 Packet Pg. 41
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.

Such conditions are, or are likely to be, beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency design and repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contracts. Immediate action is, and continues to be necessary, due to the clear and imminent danger presented by any storm event that could occur during the time the storm water pump station is non-functional. Flooding could occur to areas upstream of the pump station, causing health and safety issues, as well as extensive property damage. As such, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City and the need to continue the emergency action continues as the repair will take approximately 8-14 months or longer. The Proclamation of Local Emergency is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.

City staff has contracted with the civil engineering firm of Schaaf & Wheeler of San Jose, California to assist the City with the rehabilitation of the pump station. In addition, the pump station has been cleared of any fire damaged debris and the damaged pumps/engines have been removed. On July 13, 2020, the City Council approved construction services agreement for rebuild and re-installation of a pump and gear drive, the renovation of bathrooms, purchase and installation of new stainless-steel doors, and repair pump station wet-well grates. As part of the on-going maintenance for the pump station, staff purchased a new pump which was approved by the Council at the August 9, 2020 City Council meeting. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was also approved on September 1, 2020 and will remain in place until the pump station is operational. On October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a non-standard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs are completed. This work included a new pump, transfer switch, temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors have been installed. Staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor storm water flows and purchased two new sump pumps to accommodate flows.

On May 10, 2021, City Council approved the purchase of two new Caterpillar engines utilizing the City’s established Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement. The rehabilitation plan is currently 100% completed, and staff has completed the engineering review. The roofing plan was approved by the Building Department. Staff has also completed selection of the Construction Management firm which was from the established On-Call Construction Management list. Staff is in the process of discussing permitting requirements for the overall project with the California Coastal Commission.

Staff completed the field portion of a topographic survey to support a PG&E application to reestablish natural gas service at the Anza Pump Station to supply the natural gas to run the prepurchased natural gas engines to drive the pumps. The City entered into an agreement with PG&E to tap the gas main and install a new gas meter. The City has also engaged a gas pipeline contractor for a quotation on installing the gas service line from the gas main to the gas meter. In addition, the City has submitted the Caltrans Encroachment Permit application required for gas service line construction on Highway 1 and has obtained a separate emergency Coastal Development Permit request with the California Coastal Commission for installation of the new gas line and a redundant pump/engine that was approved.

During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that 4 Packet Pg. 42
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City has been working to reach agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim. Staff issued a public request to prequalify bidders for the Anza Pump Station project in December 2021. Ultimately, two contractors were deemed qualified to bid on the project. Both contactors submitted bids for the project in February of 2022. The contractors specialize in pump stations.

As of May 1, 2022, the Anza Pump Station Repair Project’s General Contractor, DW Nicholson (DWN), has begun the work and is focusing on providing project equipment submittals and requests for information (RFIs). DWN is currently onsite and working. City consultant team members Schaaf and Wheeler (engineer of record providing construction support) and Ghirardelli and Associates (third-party construction manager) are working closely with City staff to process paperwork, respond to questions along with other issues as they arise, and manage the construction work. Active construction continues at the Anza Pump Station. Except for the roof hatches, the roof installation is complete. The Project continues to finalize electrical equipment submittals and continues coordination with the engine supplier, with the new gas engines’ site delivery scheduled for mid-December. Supply chain issues with electrical panels and components and delays from PG&E are anticipated to slip Project completion into the April 2023 timeframe. In addition, the project to construct a new 2-inch gas service line for the new gas engines was awarded to Casey Construction. Installation of the new 2-inch gas service line in the parking lot east of the Anza Pump Station was completed in October. Installation of the new 2-inch gas service line from the parking lot into the Caltrans Right of Way near the existing PG&E gas main was completed end of November. PG&E requires additional utility location verification prior to moving forward with the new gas service line tie in to the existing gas main, and therefore it is anticipated that the tie in work will occur in late January 2023. The last step in this process will consist of PG&E installing their gas meter and regulator at the Anza Pump Station in February 2023.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with November 14, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, consultants, and contractors to manage the emergency work related to the Anza Pump Station repair project. The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach. Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of this emergency work monthly through the emergency declaration Council reports
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency. 4 Packet Pg. 43
Pacifica City Council 4
December 12, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 44
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AT THE

ANZA PUMP STATION AT THE PACIFICA STATE BEACH
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designate the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, subject to ratification by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.02 of the PMC defines "emergency" as the “actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this City caused by such conditions as earthquake, hazardous materials, plane crash, landslide, tsunami, epidemic, flood, riot, fire, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the capability of control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of this City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire and that the engine and the motors would need to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, the damage to this pump station threatens the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding that can occur without an operational pump station; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure due to the risk of flooding and requires immediate attention and repair and as such constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102; and WHEREAS, such conditions are beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract, ATTACHMENT 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5212 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency, as issued by said City Manager in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, which is attached hereto as Attachment “A”, is hereby ratified and approved by the City of Pacifica City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said local emergency is confirmed to exist and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of this local emergency, the powers, functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency organization of the City of Pacifica shall be those prescribed by state law, by the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Pacifica, as well as this resolution and any subsequent emergency orders of the City Council. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of April 2020, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O’Neill NOES, Councilmembers: None.

ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.

CITY OF PACIFICA
Deirdre Martin, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

4.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5212 : Continuance

PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a call regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated, and determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire; and
WHEREAS, the damage to the pump system threatens the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capabilities of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair; and
WHEREAS, the City provides this written notification to the San Mateo County and State CalEMA’s Regional and Headquarter offices of a proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, such proclamation shall be subject to confirmation by the Pacifica City Council at the earliest possible time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that, in accordance with State Law and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the Director of Emergency Services proclaims the existence of a local emergency for the Anza Pump Station.

DATED: April 8, 2020
By:_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
Attachment 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5212 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5212 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept report and make determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

STAFF CONTACT:

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

On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 (Attachment 1). The City’s Proclamation was sent to San Mateo County Offices of Emergency Services and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and allows the City to seek state and federal funds relating to the emergency.

This proclamation of local emergency was based on the following findings.

BACKGROUND:

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency for the United States of America. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) determined the virus presented a serious public health threat, requiring coordination among state and local health departments to ensure readiness for potential health threats associated with the virus.

On March 3, 2020, both the Director of Emergency Services of the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Health Officer issued proclamations of local emergencies based on the imminent and proximate threat to public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors ratified both proclamations on March 10, 2020.

On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional 5 Packet Pg. 49
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared a global pandemic due to the significant spread of the virus and the increased numbers of confirmed cases worldwide.

On March 13, 2020, then President Donald J. Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak finding that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constituted a national emergency, beginning as of March 1, 2020.

As of June 15, 2021, the California Governor terminated the Executive Orders that put into place the Stay Home Order and the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and also phased out the majority of executive actions put in place since March 2020 as part of the pandemic response, leaving a subset of provisions in place that facilitate the ongoing recovery. Governor’s Orders currently in effect were N-07-21 and N-08-21, both adopted on June 11, 2021.

The California State Public Health Officer issued a new Order on June 11, 2021 to be effective June 15, 2021, which superseded all prior State health orders. Restrictions that ended on June 15, 2021 include: physical distancing, capacity limits on businesses and the County tier system.

Starting on June 15, 2021, California reopened the economy and the state moved beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy system. All sectors listed in the current Blueprint returned to usual operations based on general public health recommendations. Starting on June 15, 2021 capacity and distancing restrictions were lifted for most businesses and activities.

In March 2020, the City closed public access to many City facilities, consistent with the State and County health orders in effect at that time. City operations continued with adjusted programs and services, staffing levels and modified operations to support a predominantly remote work model in order to protect public safety and to limit the potential for exposure to the COVID-19 virus. The City has further modified its operations and guidelines based on the orders and guidelines that went into effect on June 15, 2021.

Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 continued modifications of the Brown Act to allow for local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, and supersedes the provisions previously set forth in Executive Order N-29-20, paragraph 3. These provisions of Executive Order N-08-21, subsection 42 applied through September 30, 2021.

On August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoor in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County. This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No. C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021 and will continue to be in effect until extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended in writing by the Health Officer.

On September 16, 2021, Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference.

In late November 2021, a new concerning COVID-19 variant was discovered and identified as the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant spreads rapidly even amongst some vaccinated 5 Packet Pg. 50
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
individuals.

In December 2021, in response to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance requiring masking indoors through January 15, 2022. This requirement was subsequently extended to February 15, 2022.

On January 8, 2022, the California Department of Public Health issued Updated Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public. The guidance updated isolation and quarantine recommendations in alignment with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recommends additional mitigation measures to exit isolation and quarantine, and clarifies that fully vaccinated persons who are booster-eligible, but have not yet received their booster dose are now recommended to quarantine per updated CDC recommendations.

With COVID-19 case rates subsiding in early February 2022, on February 9, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that San Mateo County would align with the state in lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated persons beginning February 16, 2022. Order No.

C19-12 issued on August 2, 2021, by the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings was also rescinded in full on February 16, 2022.

Effective March 1, 2022, the State revised its mask mandate requirement such that unvaccinated individuals are no longer required to mask in indoor public settings; however, it is strongly recommended that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue indoor masking.

Universal masking shall remain required in specified high-risk settings such as public transportation; health care settings; congregate settings; long term care facilities; and in K-12 schools and childcare settings. As of March 11, 2022, the universal masking requirement for K12 and Childcare settings was terminated.

CURRENT ANALYSIS:

The following updates have occurred since the November 14, 2022 regular City Council meeting. The state of emergency regarding COVID-19 issued by the Governor remains in place, as do the COVID-19 Community Levels (low, medium, and high) for masking recommendations. CDC recommendations continue to emphasize staying up to date with vaccination, improving ventilation, testing persons who are symptomatic and those who have been exposed, and isolating infected persons. Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors. At the low CDC COVID-19 Community Level, the CDPH recommends that vulnerable people consider taking additional precautions, including wearing a mask in crowded indoor public places.

The number of reported cases and hospitalizations categorize San Mateo County in the CDC’s Low COVID-19 Community Level per the San Mateo County Health Officer’s update as of December 5, 2022. In San Mateo County the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines effective against the original strain of the virus and the Omicron variants are readily available at primary care practices and pharmacies across the county, and these updated boosters are recommended and currently available for those ages 5 and older (Pfizer Bivalent Booster) or ages 6 and older (Moderna Bivalent Booster) .

FISCAL IMPACT:

None by this action; however, continuation of the local emergency will facilitate the ability for the 5 Packet Pg. 51
Pacifica City Council 4
December 12, 2022
City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 52

5.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5205 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5205 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5205 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5205 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5205 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5205 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 and continues to affirm the existence of the local emergency.

From the Special City Council Meeting held on March 18, 2020, for the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), through the Special City Council Meeting held on October 10, 2022, all City Council, Committee and Commission meetings were held via videoconference using a Zoom Meeting or Zoom Webinar platform with no physical meeting location open to the public. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow for public meetings to be held via teleconferenced meetings, either via audio or video or both, for all members of the body to participate from remote locations with no physical meeting location open to the public.

The Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 issued on June 11, 2021 provided local jurisdictions a basis upon which to continue conducting public meetings via videoconference without a physical 6 Packet Pg. 59
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
location open to the public under the relaxed provisions of the Brown Act until September 30, 2021.

On August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County. This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No. C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021.

Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021 and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference. Its provisions allow a local agency legislative body to meet without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act if the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency and any of the following occurs:
1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing,
2) the meeting is being held for the purposes of determining, by a majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees;
3) the legislative body has determined that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

In addition, AB 361 adds new procedures and clarifies the requirements for conducting remote meetings, including the following:
• Public Comment Opportunities in Real Time - a legislative body that meets remotely pursuant to AB 361 must allow members of the public to access the meeting via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and the agenda for the remote meeting must provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the body in real time. A legislative body cannot require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting.
• No Action During Disruptions - in the event of a disruption that prevents the local agency from broadcasting the remote meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from taking any further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access is restored.
• Periodic Findings - Government Code § 54953(e)(B) requires the legislative body to hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees.

AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

At the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted 6 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
Resolution No. 63-2021 making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The resolution also directed staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. The City Council subsequently adopted the following resolution numbers, re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk:
• Resolution No. 63-2021 on October 11, 2021
• Resolution No. 69-2021 on November 8, 2021
• Resolution No. 80-2021 on December 13, 2021
• Resolution No. 01-2022 on January 10, 2022
• Resolution No. 07-2022 on February 14, 2022
With the COVID-19 update provided at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, it was reported that although the Omicron variant spread rapidly during and after the December 2021 holiday season, with positive case rates spiking in mid-January 2022, there had been a dramatic decrease in positive cases in the third week of February, the health effects of the Omicron variant generally much less severe for vaccinated persons, and San Mateo County has a 93.9% vaccination rate for ages 5+. Effective February 16, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full.

As a result of the decrease in case rates, lower health risks and higher vaccination rates, at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Manager had recommended the return to in-person City Council and City Committee and Commission meetings beginning March 14, 2022. The City Council approved of the return to in-person meetings beginning March 14, 2022 by majority vote at the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting.

At the City Council meeting held on May 23, 2022, with the increase in COVID-19 incidence and transmission and the vulnerability of certain segments of the population, the City Council authorized public meetings of the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to return to teleconferenced meetings with no physical location open to the public due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The City Council subsequently adopted the following resolution numbers, re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk:
• Resolution No. 23-2022 on May 23, 2022
• Resolution No. 26-2022 on June 13, 2022
• Resolution No. 41-2022 on July 11, 2022
• Resolution No. 46-2022 on August 8, 2022
• Resolution No. 56-2022 on September 12, 2022
• Resolution No. 66-2022 on October 10, 2022
• Resolution No. 76-2022 on November 14, 2022
CURRENT ANALYSIS:

The following updates have occurred since the November 14, 2022 regular City Council meeting. The state of emergency regarding COVID-19 issued by the Governor remains in place, as do the COVID-19 Community Levels (low, medium, and high) for masking recommendations. CDC recommendations continue to emphasize staying up to date with vaccination, improving ventilation, testing persons who are symptomatic and those who have been exposed, and isolating infected persons. Persons can use information about the current 6 Packet Pg. 61
Pacifica City Council 4
December 12, 2022
level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors. At the low CDC COVID-19 Community Level, the CDPH recommends that vulnerable people consider taking additional precautions, including wearing a mask in crowded indoor public places.

The enclosed Resolution continues to make the required findings under AB 361, and if adopted, it will allow the City the option to continue to conduct City Council and City Commission and Committee meetings via teleconference with no physical location open to the public, to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, as well as during other state-proclaimed emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk.

The resolution also directs staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361 if found that there is a continued risk to public health and safety.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” - includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
“Maintaining a Safe Community” - includes support our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness and prevention activities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 62
Pacifica City Council 5
December 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361 TO PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY

COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL TO CONDUCT

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS DUE TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TO COVID-19
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California’s response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, at 12:11 p.m., the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the rapidly widespread of COVID-19 is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City and executed the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)” (“Proclamation”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)”, which continues to remain in place; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended and modified specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section § 54950 et seq.) and authorized local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the local legislative body; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-08-21 which extended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 concerning teleconference accommodations for public meetings through September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions due to the COVID-19 Delta variant circulating in San Mateo County and evidence of the Delta variant being highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
6 Packet Pg. 63
Pacifica City Council 6
December 12, 2022
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361, Rivas) (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) amending Government Code § 54953 and providing alternative teleconferencing requirements to conduct public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has conducted public meetings of City Council and City Committees and Commissions via teleconference from March 18, 2020 through October 10, 2022, under the modified provisions of the Brown Act as allowed for by Governor’s Orders N-29-20, N-08-21 and/or N-15-21 in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) imposes requirements to ensure members of the public are able to attend and participate in public meetings conducted via teleconference, including:
• Notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option;
• The legislative body shall take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; • Prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time;
• Prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the City has already implemented and is in full compliance with the requirements listed above when conducting public meetings via teleconference, which are now codified in Government Code § 54953(e)(2)(B-G); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 54953(e)(B), the legislative body shall hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees. The City Council must make these findings no later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting is held pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) after September 30, 2021, and must also make these findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to allow teleconference accessibility for conducing public meetings; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo 6 Packet Pg. 64
Pacifica City Council 7
December 12, 2022
issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County.

This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No.

C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2021 and January 2022 the COVID-19 Omicron variant has been observed by scientists and medical professionals to spread rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals and continues to present a health and safety risk to the general public; and
WHEREAS, effective February 16, 2022 the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full); and WHEREAS, to the County of San Mateo Health Officer strongly recommends getting vaccinated or boosters for COVID-19, improve ventilation throughout indoor spaces as much as possible, wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor public places, and continue to follow State isolation and quarantine guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, as of the week of December 5, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continue to strongly recommend that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue to mask in indoor public settings; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has cautioned that some people and communities, such as our oldest citizens, people who are immunocompromised, and people with disabilities, are at higher risk for serious illness due to COVID-19 and should take additional precautions such as avoiding crowded indoor activities with poor ventilation; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022; June 13, 2022; July 11, 2022; August 8, 2022; September 12, 2022; October 10, 2022; and November 14, 2022; the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution Nos. 23-2022, 26-2022, 41-2022, 46-2022, 56-2022, 66- 2022, and 76-2022, respectively, making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings to due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City cannot ensure that social distancing can be maintained by Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee members and/or members of the public in Council Chambers or at other locations where City Committees and Commissions regularly meet for the duration of meetings in order to safeguard the most vulnerable populations, and COVID-19 variants when transmission rates pose an imminent and serious risk to public health.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, 6 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 8
December 12, 2022
California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that a state of emergency as a result of the threat of COVID-19 still exists and continues to impact the ability of members of the public, the City Council, Council appointed Commissions and Committees, City staff and consultants to meet safely in person and would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.

SECTION 3. The State of California and the City of Pacifica continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required. Based upon that guidance, in person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating teleconferencing to allow for meaningful public participation options for all Pacifica constituents.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the findings listed in this Resolution, the City Council and Council appointed Commissions and Committees are authorized to utilize teleconferencing to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.

SECTION 5. The City Council determines that, every 30 days, it will reconsider the circumstances of the emergency and review whether it continues to directly impact the ability of the Council and appointed Committees and Commissions members to meet safely in person.

SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:
6 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 9
December 12, 2022
ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 67
Assembly Bill No. 361
CHAPTER 165
An act to add and repeal Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of, and to add and repeal Section 11133 of, the Government Code, relating to open meetings, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
AB 361, Robert Rivas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and providing for the ability of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.

The act generally requires all regular and special meetings of the legislative body be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, subject to certain exceptions. The act allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agency’s jurisdiction. The act provides an exemption to the jurisdictional requirement for health authorities, as defined. The act authorizes the district attorney or any interested person, subject to certain provisions, to commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that specified actions taken by a legislative body are null and void.

Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the Governor, or the Director of Emergency Services when the governor is inaccessible, to proclaim a state of emergency under specified circumstances.

Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the Ralph M. Brown Act’s requirements for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and that a legislative body of a local agency has a procedure for receiving and swiftly

92 6.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.

This bill would require legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body. The bill would require the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored. The bill would specify that actions taken during the disruption are subject to challenge proceedings, as specified.

This bill would prohibit the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and would specify that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. The bill would prohibit the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified. When there is a continuing state of emergency, or when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, the bill would require a legislative body to make specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these provisions, and to make those findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.

Existing law prohibits a legislative body from requiring, as a condition to attend a meeting, a person to register the person’s name, or to provide other information, or to fulfill any condition precedent to the person’s attendance.
92 Ch. 165 — 2 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) This bill would exclude from that prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online platform not under the control of the legislative body.
(2) Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act requires at least one member of the state body to be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.

The Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the state body at the meeting, and that a state body has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, would authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a state body to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the state body. With respect to a state body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the state body at each teleconference location. Under the bill, a state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically would satisfy any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. The bill would require that each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would urge state bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(3) Existing law establishes the various campuses of the California State University under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and authorizes the establishment of student body organizations in connection with the operations of California State University campuses.

The Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act of 2000 generally requires a legislative body, as defined, of a student body organization to conduct its business in a meeting that is open and public. The act authorizes the legislative body to use teleconferencing, as defined, for the benefit of the public and the legislative body in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, would authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a legislative body, as defined for purposes of the act, to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and 92 — 3 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body. With respect to a legislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

Under the bill, a legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically would satisfy any requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. The bill would require that each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would urge legislative bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(4)  This bill would declare the Legislature’s intent, consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20, to improve and enhance public access to state and local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options.
(5)  This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54953 of the Government Code proposed by AB 339 to be operative only if this bill and AB 339 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(6)  The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 89305.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
89305.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a legislative body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing 92 Ch. 165 — 4 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body.
(b)  (1)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the legislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the legislative body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the legislative body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A legislative body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a legislative body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the legislative body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
92 — 5 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a legislative body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the legislative body’s internet website.
(f)  All legislative bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 2. Section 11133 is added to the Government Code, to read:
11133. (a)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a state body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the state body.
(b)  (1)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the state body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the state body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the state body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically 92 Ch. 165 — 6 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A state body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the state body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a state body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the state body’s internet website.
(f)  All state bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to state body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
92 — 7 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislati
ve body of a local agency shall
be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

6.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e)  (1)  A local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following circumstances:
(A)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(2)  A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(A)  The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(B)  The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. 92 — 9 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time.

6.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (3)  If a state of emergency remains acti
ve, or state or local officials have
imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3.1. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency in person, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, including, but not limited to, any applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body 92 — 11 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver
which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 92 Ch. 165 — 12 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for 92 — 13 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) the public to address the legislati
ve body and offer comment in real time.

This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment. (F)  Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate. (G)  (i)  A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii)  A legislative body that does not provide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to register pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (iii)  A legislative body that provides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. (3)  If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 4. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting 92 Ch. 165 — 14 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) of the legislati
ve body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, 92 — 15 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 4.1. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, in person except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, including, but not limited to, any applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the 92 Ch. 165 — 16 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) legislati
ve body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

6.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 5. Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill incorporate amendments to Section 54953 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 339. Those sections of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2022, but this bill becomes operative first, (2) each bill amends Section 54953 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 339, in which case Section 54953 of the Government Code, as amended by Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, shall remain operative only until the operative date of Assembly Bill 339, at which time Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill shall become operative.

SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to improve and enhance public access to state and local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, permitting expanded use of teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, further, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

This act is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public participation and notice requirements allowing for greater public participation in teleconference meetings during applicable emergencies.

SEC. 8. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that during the COVID-19 public health emergency, certain requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) were suspended by Executive Order N-29-20. Audio and video teleconference were widely used to conduct public meetings in lieu of physical location meetings, and public meetings conducted by teleconference during the COVID-19 public health emergency have been productive, have increased public participation by all members of the public regardless of their location in the state and ability to travel to physical meeting locations, have protected the health and safety of civil servants and the public, and have reduced travel costs incurred by members of state bodies and reduced work hours spent traveling to and from meetings.
92 Ch. 165 — 18 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (b) The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, Section 2 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 11133 of the Government Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary physical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a physical location over members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their families while preserving the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 9. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.

The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to ensure that state and local agencies can continue holding public meetings while providing essential services like water, power, and fire protection to their constituents during public health, wildfire, or other states of emergencies, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

O
92 — 19 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

6.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5206 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending September 30, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending September 30, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Fiscal Sustainability remains one of the City Council Strategic Goals, which includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal includes preparing a quarterly financial report that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.

Staff implemented a new financial reporting practice on a quarterly basis that started last fiscal year to ensure accountability and transparency in managing public funds. This work is especially meaningful as we monitor post COVID-19 pandemic recovery of the local economy and the City’s financial health.

On June 27, 2022, the City Council adopted the structurally balanced FY 2022-23 Budget that included the revenue assumptions post-COVID-19 pandemic. Finance staff has completed the first Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2022-23, and this report reflects the financial results for the Quarter.

The First Quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s operations and fiscal condition. This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the Quarter ending September 30, 2022.

The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, building permit fees, and recreation services.
7 Packet Pg. 93
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
The First Quarter Financial Report for the City of Pacifica provides the financial status update of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures as of September 30, 2022.

The Financial Report is prepared on a cash basis; therefore, only the revenue received by September 30, 2022, is reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when paid using the cash basis method of accounting.

With the completion of the First Quarter, General Fund Revenues were $7.4 million (16% of budget), and Expenditures were $7.5 million (17% of budget). Expenditures of most municipalities typically exceed revenue during the first Quarter of any given fiscal year. This is primarily due to the majority of tax payments being remitted in the second and fourth quarters.

The County of San Mateo will remit property tax payments, the City’s largest source of revenue, in the second and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Subsequent reports should provide a clearer picture of how the City’s General Fund revenue sources perform relative to budgeted figures.

General Fund Operating expenditures are on target at the end of the first Quarter. The General Government, Police, Fire, and Non-Departmental Departments show lower expenditures in salaries and benefits category due to vacancies and timing of payments for contractual services.

Additional year-end entries related to cost-reimbursable transactions will likely occur during the year-end process. The Planning, Public Works, and PB&R Departments are on target with the budget.

Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY 2022-23 Budget is on track with revenues and expenditures performing as expected, validating the assumptions made by staff at the budget adoption. However, it is important to note that these are only preliminary numbers, as additional booking entries may occur throughout the year and during the fiscal year-end that may modify some of the First Quarter figures. Staff will continue monitoring the City’s economic conditions and report to City Council throughout the future, reporting any new information as it becomes available to ensure that the overall budget remains on target and to better prepare for the new budget cycle.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the First Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition as of the end of the Quarter ending September 30, 2022.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council’s acceptance of this report.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
7 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 09-30-22(PDF)
Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 95
City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
September 30, 2022
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio
General Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank $ 16,339,186 $ 16,339,186 16,339,186 32.75% Payroll Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 26,774 26,774 26,774 0.05% Workers Compensation Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 11,497 11,497 11,497 0.02% Senior Services Account with Tri Counties Bank 2,113,247 2,113,247 2,113,247 4.24% Turbo Data Account with Tri Counties Bank 9,415 9,415 9,415 0.02% Roy Davies Trust- Principal Account-Ladder Acct (Business) with City National Bank 2,973,504 2,973,504 2,973,504 5.96% Roy Davies Trust- Interest Account-Public Funds - Checking Acct with City National Bank 27,880 27,880 27,880 0.06% Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,445 3,445 3,445 0.01% Cash $ 21,504,949 $ 21,504,949 $ 21,504,949 43.10%
Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 17,712,502 17,371,731 17,712,502 35.50% Bank of New York Mellon-Fund 91 - Cash & Short Term 130,543 130,543 130,543 0.26% Deutsche Bank-Cash-Earmarked for debt service - Energy Retrofit Lease 13,415 13,415 13,415 0.03% US Bank - Money Market Fund* 10,204,928 10,204,928 10,204,928 20.45% PARS Post-Employment Benefit Trust** 325,999 325,999 325,999 0.65% Total Investments $ 28,387,387 $ 28,046,616 $ 28,387,387 56.90% Total Cash and Investments $ 49,892,336 $ 49,551,565 $ 49,892,336 100.00% Date
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
*Includes available cash from the City's issuance of the 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bonds totaling $25.929 million. The initial proceeds were shown in the Cash and Investment report as of September 30, 2017. ** PARS Trust - Public Agency Retirement Services - invests in Capital Appreciation funds for the City's OPEB trust and Moderate Index funds for Pension trust.

The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and are allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments are selected using safety, liquidity, and yield as the criteria. The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months. 12/12/2022

7.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 09-30-22 (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt) City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
September 30, 2022
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Amount
Tri Counties General Checking Account xx0541 $ 16,339,186 Tri Counties Payroll Account xx6915 $ 26,774
Tri Counties Workmens Comp Account xx1341 $ 11,497
Tri Counties Senior Services Account xx5996 $ 2,113,247 Tri Counties Turbo Data Account xx9758 $ 9,415
City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Principal xx5367 $ 2,973,504 City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Interest xx7033 $ 27,880 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 $ 17,712,502 Bank of New York Mellon xx0166/xx0167 $ 130,543
Deutsche Bank - Energy Retrofit Lease S80844.1 $ 13,415 US Bank - 2016 Refunding xx5000 $ 4,949
US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Project Fund xx2001 $ 4,041,963 US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Interest xx2003 $ 2,219,300 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Debt Service xx4000 $ 1 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Debt Service xx4001 $ 3,066 US Bank - 2021 Civic Center Bonds xx9000 $ 3,935,649
Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) - Post Employment Benefit Trust $ 325,999 Petty Cash $ 3,445
Total Cash per Bank Statements $ 49,892,336
Description GL Account # Amount
Cash in Bank xx.xxxxxx.11000.xxxx.xxx $ 21,728,773
Cash in Bank - Payroll xx.xxxxxx.11002.xxxx.xxx $ (4,106,654) Petty Cash xx.xxxxxx.11100.xxxx.xxx $ 3,445
Investments - LAIF 01.000000.11290.0000.000 $ 17,711,856 Investments - LAIF 22.900000.11292.0000.000 $ 646
PARS Trusts-Pension 01.000000.11297.0000.000 $ 165,521
PARS Trusts-Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 01.000000.11298.0000.000 $ 160,477 Reserve Cash-2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding 18.940000.11032.0000.000 $ 1,688,500 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Project 18.940000.11033.0000.000 $ 4,041,963 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Principal 18.940000.11034.0000.000 $ 625,000 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Interest 18.940000.11034.0000.000 $ 530,800 Cash with Fiscal Agent 22.900000.11022.0000.000 $ 13,415 R Davies Trust - Principal 27.900000.11293.0000.000 $ 2,973,504 R Davies Trust - Interest 27.900000.11296.0000.000 $ 27,880 Cash Reserve - 2016 Lease Payment 40.880000.11026.0000.000 $ 4,949 Cash Reserve - 2019 POB Refunding 40.880000.11036.0000.000 $ 1 Interest Account - 2019 POB Refunding 40.880000.11036.0000.000 $ 3,066 City of Pacifica 2021 Project Fund xx.xx0000.110xx.0000.000 $ 3,935,649 Debt Service Reserve Fund - 2004 TAB 91.960000.11019.0000.000 $ 130,486 Cash with Fiscal Agent 91.960000.11020.0000.000 $ 57
Total Cash per General Ledger $ 49,639,335
Tri Counties Bank reconciliation adjustments and timing differences $ 253,001 Total Reconciled GL Cash $ 49,892,336

7.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 09-30-22 (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt) 1 | P a g e
City of Pacifica
Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms
Agency: Federal agency securities and /or Government-sponsored enterprises.

Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The official annual financial report for the City of Pacifica. It includes a combined set of statements for each individual fund and account group prepared with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.

Bankers’ Acceptance (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company.

The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer.

Book Value: The value at which a security or investment is carried on the financial records of its owner. This value may be the original cost of acquisition of the security or original cost adjusted by amortization of a premium or accretion of a discount. The book value may differ from the security’s current market value.

Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.

California Local Government Debt: Is bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within California. California local government debt is a permitted investment under the California Government Code. The Government Code does not specify minimum credit ratings for local government debt in which local agencies may invest.

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.

Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable.

Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit of other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date.

Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.

Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an

7.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt) 2 | P a g e
exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities.

Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities or commodities).

Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount.

Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns.

Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S&L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per deposit.

Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations.

Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLB is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank.

Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.

FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest.

Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve and Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money.

7.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt) 3 | P a g e
Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system.

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA or FmHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.

Issuer: Any corporation, government unit or financial institution which borrows money through the sale of securities.

Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one per cent of the earnings.

Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are pooled together for investment and reinvestment.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.

Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase – reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyerlender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower.

Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Money Market: The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded.

Mutual Funds: Referred to in the Government Code, Section 53601(l) as “shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies.” The Mutual Fund must be restricted by its by-laws to the same investments as the local agency by the Government Code. These investments are Treasury issues, Federal Agency issues, State of California and City (within California) debt obligations, Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Certificates of Deposit, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Reverse Repurchase Agreements,

7.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt) 4 | P a g e
and Medium Term Corporate Notes. The quality rating and percentage restrictions in each investment category applicable to the local agency also apply to the Mutual Fund.

Negotiable: Term used to designate a security, the title to which is transferable by delivery.

Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid.

Open Market Operations: Purchases and sales of government and certain other securities in the open market by the New York Federal Reserve Bank as directed by the FOMC in order to influence the volume of money and credit in the economy. Purchases inject reserves into the bank system and stimulate growth of money and credit; sales have the opposite effect. Open market operations are the Federal Reserve’s most important and most flexible monetary policy tool.

Par Value: The amount of principal of a security that must be paid at maturity. The par value may also be referred to as the “face amount” of a security.

Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.

Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers included Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.

Principal: Describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money which the investor pays for the investment.

Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state – the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital.

Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the State to hold public deposits.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return.

Repurchase Agreement (RP or Repo): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank services.

7.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt) 5 | P a g e
Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Security: An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity.

Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.

SEC Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule.

Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.

Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year.

Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to ten years.

Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio.

Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among member of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.

Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.

7.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5221 : FY2022-23 Q1 Treasurer's Rpt)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to enter into an agreement with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing Child Care and development services and to authorize the designated personnel to sign contract documents for fiscal year 2023-24, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving an Agreement with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the Purpose of Providing Child Care and Development Services and to authorize the Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents for Fiscal Years 2023-24.” STAFF CONTACT:

Michael Perez, Director - Parks, Beaches and Recreation (650) 738-7382
[email protected]
Tracy Gilbert, Child Care Supervisor
(650) 738-7388
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Child Care Services is in an annual contractual agreement with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services to provide subsidized Child Care.

Council action authorizing staff to have on-going responsibility and authority to work with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services regarding the program’s contracts is required. Currently, Child Care Services Supervisor Tracy Gilbert has this authority and will continue to facilitate this process. This includes: processing the annual Continued Funding Application, submission of monthly/quarterly requests for reimbursement, attending semi-annual and annual training sessions and authorizing families to receive subsidized care.

Annual contracts from the California State Department of Education for providing subsidized Child Care at Sunset Ridge, Vallemar, Ocean Shore and Cabrillo, are the General Child Care contract and the California State Preschool contract providing care at Fairmont West.

The California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services request a Council resolution authorizing participation in the 2023-24 contract documents, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents and naming an authorized representative.
8 Packet Pg. 103
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This action helps to support youth services, which is a component of A Healthy and Compassionate Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The expenditures and revenues related to these contracts were included in the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget. No additional budget authority is needed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 104
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING

AGREEMENT TO THIS TRANSACTION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE

PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND TO

AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATED PERSONNEL TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the City of Pacifica authorizes entering into this agreement to this transaction and that the person/s who are listed below are authorized to sign the transaction for the Governing Board.

NAME TITLE SIGNATURE
Kevin Woodhouse City Manager __________________________ Bob Palacio Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director __________________________ Tracy Gilbert Child Care Supervisor __________________________ PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ 8 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 4
December 12, 2022
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 106

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:
2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022.” STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director
650-501-6004
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, Public Works Director
650-738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City of Pacifica, like many other local agencies, levies fees on new development within the City in order to fund public capital improvements necessitated by such development (Development Fees). In 1987 the State enacted Assembly Bill No. 1600, adding Section 66000 et seq. to the Government Code, commonly known as AB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act imposes certain accounting and reporting requirements on local agencies that collect Development Fees. The proposed action before the City Council is designed to ensure that the City complies with the accounting and reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

The City of Pacifica’s Municipal Code authorizes collection of the following Development Fees covered by the Mitigation Fee Act:
• Traffic Impact Mitigation Improvement Fees for Highway One Improvements (Chapter 15,Title 8) - Fund 12
• Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for the Improvement of the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersection (Chapter 18, Title 8) - Fund 14 • Planned Drainage Facilities Fees (Article 1, Chapter 4, Title 7) - Fund 19 • Capital Projects Fees (Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7) - Fund 22 • In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee (Resolution No. 17-86, amended April 27, 2020 by Resolution 23-2020) - Fund 25
9 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
• Dedications and Fees for Park and Recreational Purposes (Chapter 19, Title 8) - Fund 26
• Sewer Connection Charges, (Article 1, Chapter 11, Title 6) - Fund 34 The Mitigation Fee Act mandates that for accounting purposes, Development Fees and related interest must be accounted for separately and used only for the purposes for which the Development Fees were collected. The City tracks Development Fee activity through dedicated revenue accounts and specific expenditure allocations to appropriate projects.

Mitigation Fee Act Reporting Requirements
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that, within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public the following information regarding each of its Development Fee funds:
• A brief description of the type of Development Fee in the fund. • The amount of the Development Fee.
• The beginning and ending fund balance for the fiscal year. • The amount of Development Fees collected and interest earned. • An identification of each public improvement on which Development Fees were expended together with the amount of such expenditures. • Information regarding the schedule for commencement of certain public improvements to be funded with Development Fees.
• A description of any inter-fund transfers or loans made from the fund. • The amount of any refunds made.

To comply with these requirements, staff has prepared the attached Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees. Pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, this report is being presented to the City Council for review at a regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the information was made available to the public. The 2021-2022 report was filed with the City Clerk’s office and made available for public review on November 28, 2021.

In addition, notice of the time and place of this meeting must be mailed at least 15 days prior to the meeting to all interested parties who filed a written request for such a notice. The City has received no such requests for notice.

Findings Regarding Unexpended Fees
For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund, and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted. Gov. Code § 66001(d)(1). The findings are:
• The purpose to which the Development Fee is to be put. • There is a reasonable relationship between the Development Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
• Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements to be funded by the Development Fee. • Designate the approximate date on which the financing of the incomplete improvements will be complete.

Staff prepared a five-year analysis of the development fees. Staff finds that the purpose for each Development Fee is sufficiently described in the attached report. In addition, the original nexus study creating or amending the fee establishes the reasonable relationship between the Development Fee and the purpose for which it was created, the other sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the projects where the Development Fee are 9 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
part of the funding and the approximate dates on which the financing of the incomplete improvements will be completed are outlined in the City’s CIP budget each year.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

No alternative action has been identified for the approval of the 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Fiscal Sustainability: includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and well prepared for grant opportunities.
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. These mitigation fees assist in the development and improvement of City infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 4
December 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING 2021- 2022 MITIGATION FEE ACT ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT FEES JUNE 30, 2022 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the City of Pacifica is required to prepare an annual report regarding development impact fees within 180 days after the close of each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Staff has prepared the 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Impact Fee Report”), and incorporated by reference, which satisfies the reporting requirements stated in the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66006(b)(2), the Impact Fee Report has been available for public review at the Clerk’s office since November 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City imposes development fees that are subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.): the Traffic Impact Mitigation Improvement Fees for Highway One Improvements, the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for the Improvement of the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersection, the Planned Drainage Facilities Fees, the Capital Projects Fees, the In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee, the Park Facilities Impact Fee, and the Sewer Connection Charges; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d) requires a local agency to make findings with respect to any unexpended funds for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared a five-year analysis of the development fees. Staff finds that the purpose for each Development Fee is sufficiently described in the attached report. In addition, the original nexus study creating or amending the fee establishes the reasonable relationship between the Development Fee and the purpose for which it was created, the other sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the projects where the Development Fee are part of the funding and the approximate dates on which the financing of the incomplete improvements will be completed are outlined in the City’s CIP budget each year.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The Council hereby approves, accepts, and adopts the Impact Fee Report for the fiscal year 2021-2022, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and makes the findings set forth in this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacifica finds as follows:

1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the City has 9 Packet Pg. 110
Pacifica City Council 5
December 12, 2022
conducted an annual and five-year review of its development impact fees and the Council has reviewed the Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

2. The funds have been and shall be used for the purposes stated in said report and are necessary to mitigate impacts resulting from development in the City and there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 111
Path of Portola 1769 • San Francisco Bay Discovery Site City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
2021-2022 Mitigation Fee
Act Annual Report of
Development Fees
June 30, 2022

9.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Path of Portola 1769 • San Francisco Bay Discovery Site Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal.............................................................................................................. i City Council and Elected Officials ........................................................................................ ii

INTRODUCTION
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting............................................. 2 Description of Development Impact Fees............................................................................. 5

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance................................ 11 Highway 1 Improvements, Fund 12...................................................................................... 12 Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersections, Fund 14.......................... 13 Planned Drainage Facilities Fees and Reserve for Drainage Facility Construction Funds, Fund 19................................................................................................................................ 14 Capital Projects Funds, Fund 22.......................................................................................... 15 In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee, Fund 25…............................................................................ 16 Park Facilities Impact Fee, Fund 26...................................................................................... 17 Sewer Connection Charges, Fund 34................................................................................... 18

9.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees i December 12, 2022
The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of Pacifica Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of Pacifica:

State law requires any local agency that imposes development impact fees to prepare an annual report providing specific information about those fees. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code Section 66006(b) and 66001(d), as amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 518 and Senate Bill (SB) 1693, I hereby submit the Development Impact Fee Report (formerly the Public Facilities Fee Report) for the City of Pacifica, California for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2022.

Development impact fees are charged by local governmental agencies in connection with approval of development projects. The purpose of these fees is to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. The legal requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code §§ 66000‐66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"), the bulk of which was adopted as 1987’s AB 1600 and thus commonly referred to as “AB 1600 requirements”.

In Pacifica, development impact fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued for the purpose of mitigating the impacts caused by new development on the City’s infrastructure. Fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of public facilities needed as a result of this new development.

State law requires the City prepare and make available to the public the Development Impact Fee Report within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. The City Council must review the annual report at a regularly scheduled public meeting not less than fifteen days after the information is made available to the public. A draft of this report was filed with the City Clerk’s office and available for public review on November 23, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,
Yulia Carter
Assistant City Manager/Finance Director

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

MAYOR PRO
TEM
Tygarjas Bigstyck

COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Sue Vaterlaus
Mike O’Neill
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

9.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees ii

CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA

MARY BIER
Mayor

TYGARJAS BIGSTYCK
Mayor Pro Tem

SUE VATERLAUS

SUE BECKMEYER
MICHAEL O’NEILL
Members of City Council

KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager

MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON
City Attorney

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

YULIA CARTER

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK
Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance
Director of Planning
KIRK STRATTON Interim Police Chief
RON MYERS Fire Chief
LISA PETERSEN Director of Public Works
MICHAEL PEREZ Director of Parks, Beaches & Recreation
SARAH COFFEY City Clerk

OFFICIAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & SAFETY COMMISSION

OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION

PLANNING COMMISSION

9.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 1

INTRODUCTION

9.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 2

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORTING A. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66006(b)
Pursuant to Government Code 66000 et seq. and specifically Government Code section 66006(a), the City is required to prepare an annual report regarding any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fee for public improvements within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 66000, and that is imposed by the local agency as a condition of approving the development project. California Government Code Section 66006(b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local agencies that impose AB 1600 development impact fees on new development. Annually, for each separate fund established for the collection and expenditure of development impact fees, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year. The applicable page numbers for the location where each item can be found in the report are provided for reference. • A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund (pages 4 to 7). • The amount of the fee (pages 11 to 19).
• The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund (page 11). • The amount of the fees collected and interest earned (pages 11 to 19). • An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees (pages 11 to 19). • An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement (pages 11 to 19). • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan (pages 2 to 3).
• The amount of refunds made due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded (pages 2 to 3).

City Actions Regarding this Section:
• For the 2021-2022 fiscal year the City did not provide any refunds of development fees. • The $6,051,250 Other Revenue in Fund 22, Capital Projects Fund consists of a $1.5M transfer from the ERAF Fund, General Fund, Frontierland Remediation Fund, Reimbursement Expense Civic Center Evaluation & Remediation, Street Construction, PB&R R Davies Trust, Sewer Construction Fund and WWTP to fund various projects. No development impact fees were transferred from either of the funds.
• For the 2021-2022 fiscal year the City did not provide any loans from funds that utilize development fees.

9.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 3 B. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(d)
For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of development impact fees, California Government Code Section 66001(d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
• Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
• Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged. • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements.
• Designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

City Actions Regarding this Section:
• We reviewed the 5-Year Funds and there are no actions to report.

9.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 4

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Highway 1 Improvements, Fund 12
Established: § 1, Ord. 318-C.S., eff, February 10, 1982, PMC: Chapter 15, Title 8 and as amended by Ordinance No. 853-C.S.

Purpose: To provide for the construction of improvements to Highway One in the City from Westport Drive south to the southern City limits.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:
(a) Primary Impacting Area.
(1) Per new residential unit (average of 1,000 square feet): $2,100.00 (2) Per new junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet: No fee (3) For new accessory dwelling unit seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or greater, the fee shall be as determined by the formula:

However, in no event shall the fee exceed the fee applicable to a new Primary residential unit: See formula in
Section 8-

15.04(a)(3)
(4) Per new commercial unit (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area): $ 840.00 (b) Secondary Impacting Area.
(1) Per new residential unit (average of 1,000 square feet): $ 700.00 (2) Per new junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit less than seven hundred fifty square feet: No fee
(3) For new accessory dwelling unit seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or greater, the fee shall be as determined by the formula:

However, in no event shall the fee exceed the fee applicable to a new Primary residential unit: See formula in
Section 8-

15.04(a)(3) (3)
(4) Per new commercial unit (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area): $ 275.00 To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning September 1, 1984, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company.

9.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 5 Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersections, Fund 14 Established: § II, Ord. 422-C.S., eff. September 26, 1984, PMC: Chapter 18, Title 8 Purpose: To provide for the construction of improvements to alleviate traffic congestion at the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard intersection.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:

The fee shall be One Hundred Eighty and no/l00ths ($180.00) Dollars per trip generated. Trips generated by new development shall be based on the latest information available and approved by the City Engineer. Trips generated by residential developments shall be the actual trips. Trips generated by commercial, office, and retail development shall be forty (40%) percent of the actual trips generated.

To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning July 1, 1995, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company.

9.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 6 Planned Drainage Facilities Fees And Reserve For Drainage Facility Construction Funds, Fund 19 Established: § 1, Ord. 458-86, eff. March 26, 1986, PMC: Article 1, Chapter 4, Title 7 Purpose: To provide for the construction of drainage facilities to remove surface and storm drainage waters.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:

Area Number Watershed Title Fee
1 Globe 0
2 Edgemar $2660.00
3 Pacific Manor $2325.00
4 Salada Beach $2325.00
5 Brighton $2775.00
6 Fairway Park $5190.00
7 Vallemar $3680.00
8 Rockaway Beach $6850.00
9 Lower Linda Mar 0
10 Linda Mar $2450.00
11 San Pedro Terrace $8710.00
To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning September 1, 1990, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

9.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 7 Capital Projects Funds, Fund 22
Established: § 1, Ord. 7-C.S., eff. October 28, 1970, as renumbered by § III, Ord. 408- C.S., eff. July 11, 1984, PMC: Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7 Purpose: To provide for the construction of facilities that provide essential municipal services.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:
(a) For each finished or unfinished bedroom in each new dwelling unit, One Hundred and Ten and no/100ths ($110.00) Dollars
(b) For each hotel or motel unit, Fifty-Five and no/100ths ($55.00) Dollars (c) For each other new structure, an amount equal to one percent of the permit valuation.

To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning July 1, 1985, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News-Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company.

In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee, Fund 25
Rockaway Beach Redevelopment Project Area:

Established: Resolution No. 17-86, amended April 27, 2020 by Resolution 23-2020.

Purpose: The fee provides for the construction and renovation of public parking facilities in the Rockaway Beach Redevelopment Project Area.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:
(1) Fee per in-lieu parking space: $40,260
The Fee is subject to construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning April 2020 (CCI = 12,816.67), the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News-Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company.

Sharp Park Redevelopment Project Area:

Established: Resolution No. 25-2020 on May 11, 2020.

Purpose: The fee provides for the construction of public parking facilities in the Sharp Park Redevelopment Project Area.

9.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 8 Park Facilities Impact Fee, Fund 26
Established: § 4, Ord. 456-85, effective December 25, 1985 repealed and replaced by Section 2 of Ord. 786-C.S., effective April 12, 2012, PMC: Chapter 19, Title 8
§ 7, Ord. 456-85, eff. December 25, 1985, § 3, Ord. 786-C.S., eff. April 12, 2012, PMC: Article 8, Chapter 1, Title 10
Purpose: To provide for the development and rehabilitation of parks and recreational facilities.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:

Park Facilities Impact Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Bedrooms Total Fee
Zero $2,263
One $3,397
Two $4,754
Three $5,887
Four $7,246
Five $8,378
Each after Five $1,359
The Park Facilities Impact Fee established by resolution of the City Council, unless the development of such residence, unit, home, addition or modification requires a tentative subdivision or parcel map pursuant to Title 10 of this Code, in which case Section 10-1.803 shall be applicable.

To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News-Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company.

9.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 9 Sewer Facility Construction Fund (Sewer Connection Charges), Fund 34 Established: § 2 Ord. 5, as amended by §§ 1 and 3, Ord. 374, as renumbered by § 2, Ord. 395-C.S., eff. March 8, 1984: Article 1, Chapter 11, Title 6 and as amended by Ordinance No. 853-C.S.

Purpose: To provide for the construction and expansion of the City’s wastewater facilities, inclusive of the treatment plant, disposal system, main trunk interceptor, outfall sewers, inflow elimination facilities, and collection system trunk lines.

Beginning Rate of the Fee:

Sewer connection charges
(a) Residential schedule in the original City limits
(1) One-Thousand Four Hundred and Eleven and no/100ths ($1,411.00) Dollars for each single-family, townhouse, and condominium dwelling unit (2) One-Thousand Seventy and no/100ths ($1,070.00) Dollars for each multiple-family dwelling unit
(b) Commercial schedule in the original City limits
(1) One-Thousand Four Hundred and Eleven and no/100ths ($1,411.00) Dollars per unit for commercial units not discharging industrial waste Sewage facilities, main trunk, interceptor, outfall sewers, acquisition, construction or reconstruction of sanitation or sewage facilities
(a) One-Thousand and Sixty and no/100ths ($1,060.00) Dollars for each residential, multiple, and/or commercial unit but not less than Two-Thousand One-Hundred and Seventeen and no/100ths ($2,117.00) Dollars per acre of residential, multiple, and/or commercial property (b) A charge based on the estimated rate of flow expressed in terms of equivalent units for commercial, manufacturing, and industrial connections; and(c)A charge for the Commercial Recreation District (C-R), as set forth in Section 9-4.1501 of Article 15 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of this Code, for the connection of the plumbing of any building or structure to the sanitary sewer system of the City equivalent to one-half (½) the fees set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.

Inflow/infiltration charges
(a) Seven Hundred and Seventy-Four and no/100ths ($774.00) Dollars for each residential, multiple, and/or commercial unit, but not less than One-Thousand Six-Hundred and FortySeven and no/100ths ($1,647.00) Dollars per acre of residential, multiple, and/or commercial property
(b) A charge based on the estimated rate of flow expressed in terms of equivalent units for commercial, manufacturing, and industrial connections
(c) A charge for the Commercial Recreation District (C-R), as set forth in Section 9-1.1501 of Article 15 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of this Code, for the connection of the plumbing of any building or structure to the sanitary sewer system of the City equivalent to one-half (½) the fees set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.

To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning September 1, 1984, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company.

9.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 10

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT

9.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description
Highway 1
Improvements
Fund 12
Manor Drive/Palmetto
Avenue/Oceana
Boulevard
Fund 14
Planned Drainage
Facilities
Fees/Reserve For
Drainage Facility
Fund 19
Capital Projects
Funds
Fund 22
Rockaway Beach InLieu Parking
Fund 25
Dedications/Fees For
Park And
Recreational
Fund 26
Sewer Facility
Construction Fund
(Sewer Connection
Charges), Fund 34

REVENUES
Fees $ 39,296 $ 4,670 $ - $ 52,992 $ - $ 147,617 $ 36,246 Interest - - - - - - -
Other Revenues 39,046 - - 6,051,250 - - 220,000
Total Revenues $78,342 $4,670 $0 $6,104,242 $0 $147,617 $256,246

EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 70,635 81,145 645,236 2,301,754 - 15,899 2,864,332 Total Expenditures $ 70,635 $ 81,145 $ 645,236 $ 2,301,754 $ - $ 15,899 $ 2,864,332

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 7,707 (76,475) (645,236) 3,802,488 - 131,718 (2,608,086) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 533,590 866,468 175,047 3,300,473 116,142 549,108 27,805,261 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 541,297 $ 789,993 $ (470,189) $ 7,102,961 $ 116,142 $ 680,826 $ 25,197,175 FY 2021-2022
Development Impact Fees
City of Pacifica
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Other Revenues include grant funds, transfer from other city funds, insurance and claim recoveries and settlements. 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 11

9.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, Description Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES
Commencement
Year

REVENUES
Improvement fees 39,296 39,296 100%
Interest - - 0%
Other Revenues 39,046 - 0%
Total Revenues $ 78,342 $ 39,296

EXPENDITURES
Engineering Services* 28,101 20,233 72% Ongoing
Highway 1 Transportation 912 912 100% Ongoing
San Pedro Creek Bridge 41,622 - 0% 2014
Total Expenditures $ 70,635 $ 21,145

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $ 7,707
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 533,590
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 541,297
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Section 8-15.03) (1) Per new residential unit $5,477
(2) Per new second residential unit $2,701
(3) Per new commercial unit (per square foot
of gross floor area) $2.21
(b) Secondary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Section 8-15.03) (1) Per new residential unit $1,829
(2) Per new second residential unit $932
(3) Per new commercial unit (per square foot
of gross floor area) $0.70
Commencement Year Key:

Ongoing -
Complete - indicates that construction of a project has been completed.

TBD -
Year - Year of commencement
City of Pacifica
Highway 1 Improvements - Fund 12
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2021-2022
Indicates the City’s efforts are ongoing, and/or sufficient funds have not yet been collected to complete the financing of the project.

City staff are still in the preliminary stages of project assessment and design and a commencement date has not been determined.

Fee Schedule:
*Administrative staff time assessing Improvement fees for new development projects and also includes plan check fees. 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 12

9.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES
Commencement
Year

REVENUES
Improvement fees 4,670 4,670 100%
Interest - - 100%
Other Revenues - - 0%
Total Revenues $ 4,670 $ 4,670

EXPENDITURES
Manor Drive O/P Improvements 81,145 81,145 100%
Total Expenditures $ 81,145 $ 81,145

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $ (76,475)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 866,468
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 789,993
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 18, Title 8) $380
Fee Schedule:
(1) Per daily trip generated.

City of Pacifica
Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard - Fund 14
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2021-2022
2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 13

9.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES
Commencement
Year

REVENUES
Improvement fees - - 100%
Interest - - 100%
Other Revenues - - 0%
Total Revenues $ - $ -

EXPENDITURES
Serra Outfall 558,971 - 0% 2019
Storm Drain Master Plan 86,265 86,265 100% 2020
Total Expenditures $ 645,236 $ -

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $ (645,236)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 175,047
Fund Balance, End of Year $ (470,189)
(a) Area Number (as defined in Municipal Code Section 7-4.101):

Area Number Watershed Title Fee per acre
1 Globe $0
2 Edgemar $5,946
3 Pacific Manor $5,196
4 Salada Beach $5,196
5 Brighton $6,202
6 Fairway Park $11,592
7 Vallemar $8,213
8 Rockaway Beach $15,298
9 Lower Linda Mar $0
10 Linda Mar $5,484
11 San Pedro Terrace $19,410
Fee Schedule:

City of Pacifica
Planned Drainage Facilities Fees/Reserve For Drainage Facility - Fund 19 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2020-2021
2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 14

9.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description
Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES Commencement
Year

REVENUES
Improvement fees 52,992 52,992 100%
Interest - - 0%
Other Revenues 6,051,250 - 0%
Total Revenues $ 6,104,242 $ 52,992

EXPENDITURES
Engineering Services 508 51 10% Ongoing
Work Order System 43,747 4,375 10% 2019
Various Bldg Repairs 47,200 9,440 20% 2019
PD Parking Light and Pathway 22,000 2,200 10% 2020
Urban Forest, Land Management 62,475 0 0% 2020
PW Office and Facility Assessment 47,678 4,768 10% 2020 Cubicles Community Center 188,977 188,977 100% 2020
Civic Center Conceptual Design 1,046 105 10% 2020
Beach Blvd Seawall Reconstruction 19,731 0 0% 2019
Frontierland Walkway 273,295 0 0% 2021
Beach Blvd Resurfacing 193,011 0% 2021
North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvements 202,384 0% 2021
Civic Center Evaluation & Remed 1,171,232 0% 2021
Beach Blvd Public Plaza 28,472 10% 2021
Total Expenditures $ 2,301,754 $ 209,915

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $ 3,802,488
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 3,565,518
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 7,368,006
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7) $290
(2) Per hotel or motel unit $144

1.7639% of the
valuation
(3) each other new structure (except accessory buildings and buildings or structures primarily used for Boys' or Girls' Clubs, Boy or Girl Scouts, or other nonprofit activities for which the Council may waive the fee), .
(1) Per bedroom in a dwelling unit
City of Pacifica
Capital Projects Fund - Fund 22
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2021-2022
Fee Schedule:
2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 15

9.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES
Commencement
Year

ROCKAWAY REVENUES
Improvement fees 0 - 100%
Interest - - 100%
Other Revenues - - 0%
Total Revenues $ - $ -

ROCKAWAY EXPENDITURES
No Expenditures 2019
- 2019
Total Expenditures $ - $ -

SHARP PARK REVENUES
Improvement fees
Interest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $ - $ -

SHARP PARK EXPENDITURES
No Expenditures
Total Expenditures $ - $ -
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Resolution No. 23-2020) $40,260
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Resolution No. 25-2020) $40,260
On May 11, 2020 City Council approved Resolution No. 25-2020 to establish the In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee for the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area
(1) Fee per in-lieu parking space.

City of Pacifica
Fee Schedule:

FY 2021-2022
In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee - Fund 25
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance (1) Fee per in-lieu parking space.

On April 27, 2020 City Council approved the increase of the In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee for the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Area 2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 16

9.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description
Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES Commencement
Year

REVENUES
Improvement fees 147,617 147,617 100%
Interest - - 0%
Other Revenues - - 0%
Total Revenues $ 147,617 $ 147,617

EXPENDITURES
Engineering Services
Parks Project FY21/22 15,899 15,899 100% 2019
Transfer out to Capital Improvement* - - 100% 2020
Total Expenditures $ 15,899 $ 15,899

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $ 131,718
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 549,108
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 680,825
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 19, Title 8) Park Facilities Impact Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Bedrooms Total Fee
Zero $2,263
One $3,581
Two $5,011
Three $6,205
Four $7,638
Five $8,830
Each after Five $1,433
*Transfer to Roy Davies Trust fund and Capital Improvement fund to fund parks facilities improvement projects.

Fee Schedule:

City of Pacifica
Dedications/Fees For Park And Recreational - Fund 26
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2021-2022
2021/2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 17

9.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Description Total Funds Dev. Fees % FROM FEES
Commencement
Year

REVENUES
Improvement fees 36,246 36,246 100%
Interest - - 0%
Other Revenues 220,000 - 0%
Total Revenues $ 256,246 $ 36,246

EXPENDITURES
Skate Park Fence - - 0% Ongoing
Pump Replacements 39,329 1,966 5% Ongoing
Centrifuges - - 0% Ongoing
Scada & PLC System 5,865 293 5% Ongoing
Calera Crk Wetlands Compliance - - 0% Ongoing
Unltraviolet Disinfection 46,786 2,339 5% Ongoing
Parking Lot Restoration - - 0% Ongoing
Secondary System Blowers - - 5% Ongoing
WWTP Rate Study 42,785 2,139 5% Completed
San Pedro Creek TMDL 10,930 - 0% N/A
Brighton Pump Station - - 10% Ongoing
Linda Mar Pump Station 434,055 43,406 10% Ongoing
Collection System 526,383 52,638 10% Ongoing
Rockaway Pump Station 89,653 8,965 10% Ongoing
Sewer System Master Plan 31,851 1,593 5% Completed
Sharp Park Pump Station 111,811 11,181 10% Ongoing
Root Foaming 9,161 - 0% Ongoing
Equalization Basin Project 9,469 947 10% 2012
Repair and Rehab 192,768 19,277 10% Ongoing
Lateral Grant Assistance 88,000 - 0% Ongoing
WWTP Condition Assessment - - 5% Completed
CCTV Software & Equip 9,868
CCWRP Storage & Office 1,352 68 5% Ongoing
CCWRP Projects 25,729 1,286 5% Ongoing
CCWRP Photovoltaics Imp 233,632 11,682 5% Ongoing
CCWRP Arc Flash 1,859 - 0% Ongoing
CCWRP Headworks Feasibility & Improvem 14,228 - 0% Ongoing CCWRP Environmental Compliance 27,599 - 0% Ongoing
CCWRP Repair & Replace 71,610 3,580 5% Ongoing
Anza Pump Station Repair 839,610 83,961 10% 2020
Transfer Out to General Capital Improveme - - 0% N/A
Asset Transfer to Fund 18 - - 0% N/A
Total Expenditures $ 2,864,332 $ 245,322

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $ (2,608,086)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 27,805,261
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 25,197,175
City of Pacifica
Sewer Connection Charges - Fund 34
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2021-2022
2020/2021 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 18

9.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee CONNECTION FEES (SEC. 6-11.102)
$1,455
b) Second Unit Unit $728
c) Multi-Family Dwellings $1,104
d) Commercial Units (= # fixture units/12) $1,455
TRUNK LINE FEES (SEC. 6-11.103)
a) Residential
1) Per unit: Single, Townhouse, Condominium, or multi-family $1,094 2) Per acre $2,184
b) Second Unit Unit
1) Per unit $1,094
2) Per acre $2,184
c) Commercial Units (= # fixture units/12)
1) Per commercial unit (= # fixture units/12) $1,094
2) Per acre $2,184
INFLOW/INFILTRATION FEES (SEC. 6-11.104)
a) Residential
1) Per unit: Single, Townhouse, Condominium, or multi-family $798 2) Per acre $1,699
b) Second Unit Unit
1) Per unit $399
2) Per acre $850
c) Commercial Units (= # fixture units/12)
1) Per commercial unit (= # fixture units/12) $798
2) Per acre $1,699
SEWER TAP FEES (SEC. 6-11.301)
$472

INSPECTION AND REVIEW CHARGES
$233
Number of Taps
Number of Hours
a) Residential Units: Single, Townhouse, or Condominium dwelling unit Sewer Connection Charges - FUND 34 FY 21-22 (continued) Fee Schedule:
2020/2021 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees 19

9.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A - 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees June 30, 2022 (5217 : 2021-2022 Mitigation Fee

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Letter to the Governor Regarding Net Energy Metering 3.0 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Governor Newsom expressing concerns about the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Net Energy Metering (NEM) proposal.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Customers who install small solar, wind, biogas, and fuel cell generation facilities to serve all or a portion of onsite electricity needs are eligible for the state's NEM program. NEM allows customers who generate their own energy ("customer-generators") to serve their energy needs directly onsite and to receive a financial credit on their electric bills for any surplus energy fed back to their utility. The current NEM 2.0 program went into effect in 2016.

In August 2020, the CPUC issued an order to revisit the existing NEM 2.0 program, and on November 10, 2022, the CPUC published a new proposed decision <https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M498/K526/498526033.PDF> (NEM 3.0).

The Commission is scheduled to vote on NEM 3.0 at their December 15, 2022 meeting.

Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is a party that can submit formal comments to the CPUC, but has a narrow scope of comment, while the City of Pacifica is not a party that can submit formal comments directly to the CPUC. Therefore, should the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a comment letter on this proposal, then it should be submitted directly to the Governor.

DISCUSSION
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck (Pacifica’s representative to PCE) and staff consulted with PCE staff about the proposal. PCE’s initial review indicates that this revised decision is a significant improvement from an earlier CPUC proposal released late in 2021 that was met with great objection from many quarters. The latest draft removes two objectionable provisions. First, the 2021 proposal included a monthly grid charge. That charge is not a part of the latest draft.

Second, the forced migration of existing NEM customers to the new (NEM 3.0) rate has also been eliminated.

There are additional changes and differences from the current rule and from the proposal 10 Packet Pg. 135
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
offered last year including a 120-day “sunset” period based on the approval date of the decision that provides new NEM customers with their last chance to participate in NEM 2.0 rates. This sunset period is the fourth step of five standards outlined in the proposed decision to be met by the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) to implement this decision. The fifth step involves revamping the IOUs’ bill systems. Peninsula Clean Energy, as part of a joint community choice aggregation (CCA) comment filing, is going to request an extension of the sunset period to 180 days and request that the fourth and fifth steps be reversed to avoid customer confusion (first revise the billing systems, then have new NEM customers join 3.0). Either request, if granted, would effectively allow PCE to include their second municipal solar program under the prior rules.

The continued objections to NEM 3.0 include the 75% reduction of the credit that future solar installations will get for sharing their extra energy with the grid. This change reduces the value of selling excess solar back to the grid, thereby creating a significantly longer payback period for all solar installations. This change, in turn, will have the effect of slowing the installation of rooftop solar.

Should the Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter in opposition of this ruling, the attached sample letter is recommended, and has been used by other cities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could choose to not authorize the Mayor to send a comment letter on NEM 3.0.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Sending a comment letter advocating against reducing incentives for solar installation relates to the City Council’s Goal of Environmental Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the recommendation.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Draft Comment Letter (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 136

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Mary Bier

MAYOR PRO TEM
Tygarjas Bigstyck

COUNCIL
Mike O’Neill
Sue Vaterlaus
Sue Beckmeyer
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
December 13, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Opposition to CPUC Net Energy Metering Proposal
Dear Governor Newsom:

On behalf of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, a city that is phasing out gas in new construction in favor of clean energy, I am writing to oppose the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) proposed changes that would reduce the payment for selling excess solar energy back to the grid for future installations of rooftop solar.

This proposal would lessen the value of solar energy that is sold to the grid and potentially discourage new installations due to the longer payback period. In states that have enacted similar cuts, solar adoptions dropped. California should be working to increase local solar installations and batteries for business and households, not decrease it.

The adverse impacts of the CPUC’s proposal do not align with Pacifica’s climate objectives, which include phasing-out the use of gas in residential and commercial buildings to reduce greenhouse emissions. We urge you to protect the public interest and keep the current rooftop solar net energy metering structure to encourage, not discourage, more rooftop solar.

Sincerely,
Mary Bier
Mayor

10.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Comment Letter (5219 : Letter to the Governor Regarding Net Energy Metering 3.0)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
12/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:
2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopting the City of Pacifica 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lawrence Henriquez, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City collects and disposes storm water runoff generated within the City service area. The storm drainage system is designed to manage the runoff of rainwater and minimize the impact of significant rainfall. The City’s storm drainage infrastructure includes almost 55 miles of storm drainage lines spanning 4 to 90 inches in diameter, 8.7 miles of open channels, and two Cityoperated pump stations that ultimately discharge into the Pacific Ocean.

The purpose of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (2022 SDMP) is to identify capacity deficiencies in the storm drainage system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, and plan the infrastructure that will serve future development. The 2040 General Plan planning boundary was the study area boundary for the 2022 SDMP.

In 2012, the City hired Carollo Engineers to develop a Storm Drainage Master Plan that modeled the City’s existing storm drainage system. The 2012 plan identified several key infrastructure improvement projects including new storm drain lines on Linda Mar Boulevard, new storm drain lines on Avalon Drive and Edgemar Avenue, and a new storm drain pump station located in the vicinity of Clarendon Road and Lakeside Avenue, adjacent to the Sharp Park Golf Course. Although City staff sought funding for these projects, no funding was identified, and the projects were not constructed. In 2021 Carollo Engineers were hired to develop the 2022 SDMP with an emphasis on climate change impacts and identifying funding options such as grants or low interest loans, to ensure that projects can transition into the construction phase.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

The City collected input from Pacifica residents through varied and proactive outreach efforts.

Efforts included the establishment of a Storm Drain Plan webpage and e-mail through the City’s 11 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 2
December 12, 2022
website creating an opportunity for residents to provide feedback on storm drainage-related matters in their respective neighborhoods. Other community outreach activities included a popup event held at the Farmer’s Market on November 10, 2021 at which flyers containing the Storm Drain Plan webpage and e-mail were distributed. On the social media side, Nextdoor and Facebook were the two platforms used to collect community information. The community information gathered was shared with Carollo Engineers for analysis and to offer solutions in the 2022 SDMP. The 2022 SDMP Final Draft (Exhibit A) is the culmination of community feedback, City staff input, and deficiencies that were identified through the Carollo Engineers hydraulic modeling. This document was placed on the City’s website and link to the document was provided on Nextdoor and Facebook on November 30th with information related to the document provided in Connect with Pacifica the same week.

COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS:

Two study sessions with Council were held on July 11, 2022 and on September 26, 2022 regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (2022 SDMP). One of the purposes for the study sessions was to update Council on the progress of the 2022 SDMP and to obtain Council’s comments to help finalize the 2022 SDMP. Topics that were discussed at the July 11, 2022 and September 26, 2022 study sessions included flow monitoring, hydraulic modeling, public outreach efforts, design storms, funding options, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project prioritizations, and potential impacts from climate change.

Below are follow-up topics of interest that were raised by City Council during the study sessions, along with staff corresponding responses:

1.) 100-Year Storm Design:

Council requested that the 2022 SDMP discuss the 100-year design storm. The 100- year storm is also called a 1% per year chance storm event. The 2022 SDMP final report identifies the volume of rain associated with the 100-year event per Council request (including the existing 100-year event and the future event with climate change impacts). As is the case for most municipalities, the City’s storm drainage system is not designed to accommodate a 100-year design storm and developing system improvements to accommodate that level of storm would be cost prohibitive, particularly considering the City’s current availability of funding for storm drainage projects. Additionally, waiting to secure this high level of funding to build such a system likely would delay drainage improvements for years. The 2022 SDMP designs improvements for 50-year storm events as this is considered a robust design and best practice. Additionally, flows related to projected climate change have been included in the design calculations, providing an added factor of safety. This allows for a good balance in the design of cost versus risk.

2.) Low Impact Development (LID):

LID measures are used to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology. They retain and treat stormwater runoff using infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting/use or biotreatment. One such example is a bioretention basin located on Crespi Drive, adjacent to Cabrillo School. Stormwater runoff flows into the bioretention basin so that any debris from the street can settle out of the stormwater and be treated by the retention basin. Examples of LID measures were provided during the staff presentation during the September 26, 2022 Study Session.

3.) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Data Volumes:

The WWTP flow average between wet weather months and dry weather months is

0.84 MGD (Million gallons per day). The implementation of a sewer system infiltration and inflow (I/I) reduction program on the City’s sewer system, as is proposed in the current Wastewater Capital Improvement Program, will likely reduce the amount of I/I 11 Packet Pg. 139
Pacifica City Council 3
December 12, 2022
that runs through the system and is treated at the plant. The ultimate success of I/I reduction programs varies depending on a number of factors, including the sources of I/I, and nature and extent of I/I mitigation performed. Reducing I/I into the WWTP would provide a significant benefit; however, it is not possible to accurately quantify the impact this would have on the City’s storm drainage system. One of the reasons related to this is the unknown nature of where blocked I/I will flow. It may not necessarily flow to the storm drain system and may instead flow to waterways, continue as groundwater, or become surface drainage. The City continues to assess the issue of I/I in the sewer system and will also assess impacts of I/I repairs on the City’s storm drain system.

Categorization of Recommended Improvements:

The 2022 SDMP was developed using 10- and 50-year storm events and allowable flood depths were evaluated for each design storm (including future increases in the 10- and 50-year design storms due to climate change). The hydraulic models for 10-year, 24-hour events and for 50- year, 24-hour events were analyzed, and the recommended improvements were classified into three types:
• Category 1 Improvements - These projects are needed to mitigate severe flooding concerns under the 10-year and 50-year design storms. Based on the risk of severe flooding that may cause property damage, these are identified as the highest priority storm drain projects and include the Lower Linda Mar, Monterey Road, and Sharp Park Improvements.
• Category 2 Improvements - These projects are needed to address ongoing drainage issues that are considered less severe than the Category 1 improvements (i.e., areas where there is a lower potential for property damage compared to the Category 1 improvements). The project is comprised of Edgemar Avenue Improvements. • Category 3 Improvements - Category 3 includes projects to address model simulated flooding under the 50-year design storm that have not historically been observed by City staff, nuisance drainage as well as other projects to extend storm drain infrastructure to unserved areas. Although important, delay in constructing these projects is not anticipated to cause near-term property damage. These projects could be implemented during larger utility upgrade or development projects. These projects include Madeira Drive, Rockaway Beach Avenue, and Lauren Avenue.

Planning Level Costs:

Planning level construction costs for the proposed improvements shown in the 2022 SDMP were developed in conjunction with Freyer & Laureta, an engineering firm specializing in storm drain improvement costing. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines an Order of Magnitude Estimate for master plan studies as an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data. These are considered high-level estimates and a final detailed project design would be necessary for more accurate costing. Higher contingencies are included as part of the estimate to account for this.

These high-level project cost estimates are calculated based on a variety of elements, such as the project location, size, length, land acquisition needs, and other factors. As noted above, allowances for project contingencies (consistent with an “Order of Magnitude” type estimate) are also included in the project costs prepared as a part of this study for better cost accuracy. The proposed system improvements, capacity upgrades, and long-term maintenance plan set the foundation for the City’s storm drainage system CIP. The cost estimates presented in this study 11 Packet Pg. 140
Pacifica City Council 4
December 12, 2022
are developed from bid tabulations, cost curves, information obtained from previous studies, and Carollo Engineers’ experience on other projects. The costs below are based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) and are shown in 2022 dollars:

Category 1 Improvement Construction Costs:

As noted, these projects are needed to mitigate severe flooding concerns under the 10-year and 50-year design storms. These are the highest priority projects due to the higher risk of flooding and include:
• Lower Linda Mar Boulevard - Installation of new 30” and 36” storm drain lines on Linda Mar Boulevard and installation of larger catch basins on Arguello Boulevard and Anza Drive - approximate project cost $5,200,000.
• Monterey Road - Installation of new storm drain lines and catch basins on Monterey Road - approximate project cost $6,900,000. Variation may include a new storm drain line within Big Inch Creek.
• Sharp Park - Construction of a new storm drainage pump station, storm drain lines to pump station, force main, and new outfall to the Pacific Ocean - approximate project cost $6,000,000.

Total Category 1 Project Costs: $18,100,000
Category 2 Improvement Construction Costs:

These projects are needed to address ongoing drainage issues that are considered less severe than the Category 1 improvements would experience (i.e., areas where there is a lower potential for property damage compared to the Category 1 improvements). These projects include:
• Edgemar Avenue - Upsize existing storm drain line and adding new storm drain lines on Manor Drive, Edgemar Avenue and Avalon Drive - approximate project cost $5,000,000
Total Category 2 Project Costs: $5,000,000
Category 3 Improvement Construction Costs:

Category 3 includes projects to address model simulated flooding under the 50-year design storm that have not historically been observed by City staff, nuisance drainage as well as other projects to extend storm drain infrastructure to unserved areas. These projects include:
• Maderia Drive - Upsize existing storm drain line from 21” to 30” for capacity - approximate project cost $500,000
• Lauren Avenue - Install new 15” storm drain line on Lauren Avenue - approximate project cost $1,200,000
• Rockaway Beach Avenue - Install new 15” storm line on Rockaway Beach Avenue and outfall to creek - approximate project cost $700,000 Total Category 3 Project Costs: $2,400,000
The Executive Summary from the Master Plan provides an overview of the effort involved in the completion of the Master Plan. The City Manager is recommending approval of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There are no alternative actions identified.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city 11 Packet Pg. 141
Pacifica City Council 5
December 12, 2022
facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. The 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan makes recommendations for areas in the City to improve the stormwater drainage infrastructure network while taking into account the effects of sea level rise.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting the City of Pacifica 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (PDF)
11 Packet Pg. 142
Pacifica City Council 6
December 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ADOPTING THE CITY OF PACIFICA 2022 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
_____________________________________________________________________ RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, A Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Pacifica was completed in 2012 by Carollo Engineers, and
WHEREAS, to ensure that drainage facilities are properly planned, constructed and maintained the City of Pacifica contracted with the consulting firm of Carollo Engineers to update the City of Pacifica 2012 Storm Drainage System Master Plan with the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan is based on existing land use and future buildout according to the proposed City of Pacifica 2040 General Plan update, and WHEREAS, the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan develops a citywide drainage system hydraulic model to assess current and future capacity requirements including the impacts of climate change, and
WHEREAS, the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan addresses the City’s drainage issues by ranking and prioritizing in a manner that makes the most effective use of the City’s resources, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2022 and September 26, 2022, study sessions were held where Carollo Engineers presented and reviewed the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan with the City of Pacifica City Council and the public, and
WHEREAS, approval of the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan provides planning and policy direction from the City Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby adopts the 2022 Storm Drainage System Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11 Packet Pg. 143
Pacifica City Council 7
December 12, 2022
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 11 Packet Pg. 144
City of Pacifica

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER
PLAN
FINAL DRAFT | November ͮͬͮͮ

11.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

11.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

City of Pacifica

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
FINAL DRAFT | November ͮͬͮͮ
This document is released for the
purpose of information exchange review
and planning only under the authority of
Paul V. Friedlander, November ͮ͵, ͮͬͮͮ,
California PE ͱͱͱͲͱ.

This document is released for the
purpose of information exchange review
and planning only under the authority of
Ryan F. Orgill, November ͮ͵, ͮͬͮͮ,
California PE ͳͱʹͬͮ.

11.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

11.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CONTENTS | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | i
pw://Carollo/Documents/CA/Pacifica/ͮͬͬͲͰͳ‐ͬͬͬͬͬͬ/ͬͯ Reports and Studies/ͬͮ Deliverables/ͬͭ Preliminary Deliverables/_ES Contents
Executive Summary
ES.ͭ Introduction ES‐ͭ
ES.ͮ Study Area ES‐ͭ
ES.ͯ Flow Monitoring ES‐ͭ
ES.Ͱ Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis ES‐ͮ
ES.ͱ Proposed Improvements ES‐ͮ
ES.ͱ.ͭ West Linda Mar Improvements ES‐ͳ
ES.ͱ.ͮ Monterey Road Improvements ES‐ͳ
ES.ͱ.ͯ Sharp Park Improvements ES‐ͳ
ES.ͱ.Ͱ Edgemar Improvements ES‐ʹ
ES.ͱ.ͱ Rockaway Beach Avenue ES‐ʹ
ES.ͱ.Ͳ Madeira Drive Improvements ES‐ʹ
ES.ͱ.ͳ Lauren Avenue Improvements ES‐ʹ
ES.Ͳ Capital Improvement Plan ES‐͵
ES.ͳ Funding Options ES‐͵
Chapter ͭ ‐ Background
ͭ.ͭ Introduction ͭ‐ͭ
ͭ.ͮ Background ͭ‐ͭ
ͭ.ͯ Study Purpose, Scope, and Authorization ͭ‐ͭ
ͭ.Ͱ Report Organization ͭ‐ͮ
ͭ.ͱ Acknowledgments ͭ‐ͮ
ͭ.Ͳ Reference Material ͭ‐ͮ
Chapter ͮ ‐ Study Area
ͮ.ͭ Study Area ͮ‐ͭ
ͮ.ͮ Planning Horizon ͮ‐ͭ
ͮ.ͯ Climate and Topography ͮ‐ͭ
ͮ.Ͱ ͭͬͬ Year Floodplain ͮ‐ͱ
ͮ.ͱ Land Use ͮ‐ͱ
ͮ.Ͳ Population ͮ‐Ͳ
ͮ.ͳ Known Developments ͮ‐Ͳ

11.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CONTENTS ii | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
Chapter ͯ ‐ Flow Monitoring
ͯ.ͭ Temporary Flow Monitoring Program ͯ‐ͭ
ͯ.ͭ.ͭ Flow Monitoring Sites and Tributary Areas ͯ‐ͭ
ͯ.ͭ.ͮ Flowmeter Installation and Flow Calculation ͯ‐ͭ
ͯ.ͭ.ͯ Rainfall Collection ͯ‐ͮ
ͯ.ͮ Flow Monitoring Program Results ͯ‐ͮ
ͯ.ͮ.ͭ Rainfall Data ͯ‐ͱ
ͯ.ͮ.ͮ Flow Monitoring Data ͯ‐ͱ
ͯ.ͯ Flow Monitoring Program Summary ͯ‐Ͳ
Chapter Ͱ ‐ Planning Criteria
Ͱ.ͭ Hydrologic Criteria Ͱ‐ͭ
Ͱ.ͭ.ͭ Precipitation Characteristics Ͱ‐ͭ
Ͱ.ͭ.ͮ Elements of the Design Storm Ͱ‐ͭ
Ͱ.ͭ.ͯ Design Storms Ͱ‐ͮ
Ͱ.ͭ.Ͱ Soil Characteristics Ͱ‐Ͱ
Ͱ.ͮ Hydraulic Criteria Ͱ‐ͭͬ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͭ Pipe Flow Ͱ‐ͭͬ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͮ Channel Flow Ͱ‐ͭͬ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͯ Surcharge Depth and Street Flooding Ͱ‐ͭͬ
Ͱ.ͮ.Ͱ Gutter Flow Ͱ‐ͭͭ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͱ Pump Stations Ͱ‐ͭͭ
Ͱ.ͯ Relevant Assumptions Ͱ‐ͭͭ
Ͱ.Ͱ Low Impact Development Ͱ‐ͭͭ
Ͱ.ͱ Climate Change Analysis Ͱ‐ͭͯ
Ͱ.ͱ.ͭ Rainfall Projections Ͱ‐ͭͯ
Ͱ.ͱ.ͮ Seal Level Rise Ͱ‐ͭͰ
Ͱ.ͱ.ͯ Climate Change Analysis Summary and Recommendations Ͱ‐ͭͳ Chapter ͱ ‐ Storm Drainage System Facilities and Hydraulic Model ͱ.ͭ System Overview ͱ‐ͭ
ͱ.ͮ Existing System Drainage Areas ͱ‐ͱ
ͱ.ͮ.ͭ North Pacifica ͱ‐͵
ͱ.ͮ.ͮ East and West Sharp Park ͱ‐ͭͬ

11.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) TM # AND/OR REPORT TITLE | PROJECT TITLE | CLIENT
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | iii
ͱ.ͮ.ͯ Fairway Park ͱ‐ͭͬ
ͱ.ͮ.Ͱ Vallemar ͱ‐ͭͭ
ͱ.ͮ.ͱ Rockaway ͱ‐ͭͭ
ͱ.ͮ.Ͳ South Pacifica ͱ‐ͭͭ
ͱ.ͯ Storm Drain Retention/Detention Basins ͱ‐ͭͮ
ͱ.Ͱ Storm Drain Pump Stations ͱ‐ͭͮ
ͱ.ͱ Existing Discharge Locations ͱ‐ͭͮ
ͱ.Ͳ Natural Springs ͱ‐ͭͯ
ͱ.ͳ Modeling Software ͱ‐ͭͯ
ͱ.ʹ Hydrologic Model ͱ‐ͭͯ
ͱ.ʹ.ͭ Design Hydrograph ͱ‐ͭͰ
ͱ.ʹ.ͮ SWMM Hydrologic Unit (Subcatchment) ͱ‐ͭͰ
ͱ.ʹ.ͯ Width of SWMM Hydrologic Unit (Subcatchment) ͱ‐ͭͱ ͱ.͵ Hydraulic Model ͱ‐ͭͱ
ͱ.͵.ͭ Flow Routing ͱ‐ͭͱ
ͱ.ͭͬ Initial Model Verification and Model Calibration ͱ‐ͭͲ Chapter Ͳ ‐ Capacity Evaluation and Proposed Improvements Ͳ.ͭ Capacity Evaluation Ͳ‐ͭ
Ͳ.ͭ.ͭ Existing System Ͳ‐ͭ
Ͳ.ͭ.ͮ Future System Ͳ‐ͭ
Ͳ.ͭ.ͯ Stakeholder Outreach Ͳ‐ͮ
Ͳ.ͮ Storm Drainage System Improvements Ͳ‐ͮ
Ͳ.ͮ.ͭ West Linda Mar Improvements Ͳ‐ͳ
Ͳ.ͮ.ͮ Monterey Road Improvements Ͳ‐ͳ
Ͳ.ͮ.ͯ Sharp Park Improvements Ͳ‐ͭͭ
Ͳ.ͮ.Ͱ Edgemar Improvements Ͳ‐ͭͭ
Ͳ.ͮ.ͱ Rockaway Beach Avenue Ͳ‐ͭͮ
Ͳ.ͮ.Ͳ Madeira Drive Improvements Ͳ‐ͭͮ
Ͳ.ͮ.ͳ Lauren Avenue Improvements Ͳ‐ͭͮ
Ͳ.ͮ.ʹ Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement Program Ͳ‐ͭͮ Chapter ͳ ‐ Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement Program ͳ.ͭ Existing Conditions ͳ‐ͭ

11.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CONTENTS iv | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
ͳ.ͮ Existing Maintenance ͳ‐ͭ
ͳ.ͮ.ͭ Cleaning ͳ‐ͭ
ͳ.ͮ.ͮ Inspection ͳ‐ͮ
ͳ.ͮ.ͯ Water Quality ͳ‐ͮ
ͳ.ͯ Future Maintenance ͳ‐ͮ
ͳ.ͯ.ͭ Program Implementation ͳ‐ͮ
ͳ.ͯ.ͮ Schedule ͳ‐ͯ
ͳ.ͯ.ͯ Inspection Program ͳ‐ͯ
ͳ.ͯ.Ͱ Cleaning Program ͳ‐ʹ
ͳ.Ͱ Rehabilitation and Replacement Program ͳ‐ͭͬ
ͳ.Ͱ.ͭ Minor Rehabilitation ͳ‐ͭͬ
ͳ.Ͱ.ͮ Major Rehabilitation/Replacement ͳ‐ͭͬ
ͳ.ͱ Equipment ͳ‐ͭͬ
Chapter ʹ ‐ Capital Improvement Program
ʹ.ͭ Capital Improvement Project Costs ʹ‐ͭ
ʹ.ͮ Project Prioritization ʹ‐ͭ
ʹ.ͯ Capital Improvement Cost ʹ‐ͭ
ʹ.Ͱ CIP Detail Sheets ʹ‐ͮ
Chapter ͵ ‐ Funding Options
͵.ͭ Introduction ͵‐ͭ
͵.ͮ Grant and Loan Funding Options ͵‐ͭ
͵.ͮ.ͭ Federal and State Low Interest Loans and Grants ͵‐ͭ ͵.ͮ.ͮ Grant and Loan Options Summary ͵‐Ͱ
͵.ͯ Development of a Stormwater Utility ͵‐Ͱ
͵.ͯ.ͭ Step ͭ ‐ Establish Funding Target ͵‐ͱ
͵.ͯ.ͮ Step ͮ ‐ Identify Non‐Rate Funding Options ͵‐ͱ
͵.ͯ.ͯ Step ͯ ‐ Forecast Operating Expenses ͵‐ͱ
͵.ͯ.Ͱ Step Ͱ ‐ Calculate the Rate Revenue Requirement ͵‐ͱ ͵.ͯ.ͱ Step Ͱ ‐ Quantify the Units of Service ͵‐ͱ
͵.ͯ.Ͳ Step ͱ ‐ Determine the Stormwater User Fees ͵‐Ͳ
͵.Ͱ Funding Options Summary ͵‐Ͳ

11.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) TM # AND/OR REPORT TITLE | PROJECT TITLE | CLIENT
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | v
Appendices
Appendix A  References
Appendix B  Land Use Descriptions
Appendix C  Known Developments
Appendix D  Flow Monitoring Report
Appendix E  Calibration Sheets
Appendix F  CIP Cost Estimating Details
Appendix G  CIP Project Detail Sheets
Appendix H  Funding Source Summary
Tables
Table ES.ͭ Capital Improvement Plan Cost Summary ES‐͵
Table ͮ.ͭ Study Area Climate ͮ‐ͱ
Table ͯ.ͭ Flow Monitoring Locations ͯ‐ͭ
Table ͯ.ͮ Rainfall Data Summary ͯ‐ͱ
Table ͯ.ͯ Peak Measured Flow and Depth During the Flow Monitoring Program ͯ‐Ͳ Table Ͱ.ͭ Precipitation Depth‐Duration Frequency Ͱ‐ͯ
Table Ͱ.ͮ Infiltration Rates for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups Ͱ‐͵ Table Ͱ.ͯ Parameters for Overland Flow Ͱ‐͵
Table Ͱ.Ͱ Maximum Allowable Surcharge Depth Ͱ‐ͭͭ
Table Ͱ.ͱ Projected Percent Increase in ͮͰ‐Hour Rainfall Volume by ͮͬͰͮ Ͱ‐ͭͰ Table ͱ.ͭ Storm Drainage System Gravity Pipeline Summary ͱ‐ͱ Table ͱ.ͮ Subbasin Summary ͱ‐͵
Table ͱ.ͯ Subcatchment Summary ͱ‐ͭͰ
Table Ͳ.ͭ Proposed Improvements Ͳ‐ͳ
Table ͳ.ͭ Maintenance and Inspection Schedule ͳ‐ͳ
Table ͳ.ͮ NASSCO PACP Defect Grades ͳ‐ͳ
Table ͳ.ͯ Cleaning Observation Code ͳ‐͵
Table ʹ.ͭ Capital Improvement Plan Cost Summary ʹ‐ͮ

11.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CONTENTS vi | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
Figures
Figure ES.ͭ Study Area ES‐ͯ
Figure ES.ͮ ES‐ͱ
Figure ͭ.ͭ ͭ‐ͯ
Figure ͭ.ͮ ͭ‐ͱ
Figure ͮ.ͭ ͮ‐ͯ
Figure ͮ.ͮ ͮ‐ͳ
Figure ͮ.ͯ ͮ‐͵
Figure ͮ.Ͱ ͮ‐ͭͭ
Figure ͯ.ͭ ͯ‐ͯ
Figure Ͱ.ͭ Ͱ‐ͯ
Figure Ͱ.ͮ Ͱ‐Ͱ
Figure Ͱ.ͯ Ͱ‐ͳ
Figure Ͱ.Ͱ Ͱ‐ͭͱ
Figure Ͱ.ͱ
Proposed Improvements
City of Pacifica
Storm Drain Service Area
Study Area
ͭͬͬ‐Year Floodplain Boundary
General Plan Land Use
Known Developments
Rain Gauge and Flow Monitoring Sites
Existing ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year ͮͰ‐hour Design Storms
Future ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year ͮͰ‐hour Design Storms
NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups
Projected Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the San Francisco Region FEMA Flood Map for Pacifica Ͱ‐ͭͲ
Figure Ͱ.Ͳ Linda Mar Pump Station Chronic and Acute Flooding Due to Sea Level Rise Scenarios Ͱ‐ͭͳ
Figure ͱ.ͭ Existing Storm Drainage System ͱ‐ͯ
Figure ͱ.ͮ Existing System Subbasins ͱ‐ͳ
Figure ͱ.ͯ Example Calibration Sheet (Site ͮ) ͱ‐ͭͲ
Figure Ͳ.ͭ Existing System Deficiencies Ͳ‐ͯ
Figure Ͳ.ͮ Proposed Improvements Ͳ‐ͱ
Figure Ͳ.ͯ Monterey Road Improvement Alternatives Ͳ‐͵
Figure ͳ.ͭ Recommended Pipeline Inspection Program ͳ‐ͱ

11.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) ABBREVIATIONS | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | vii
Abbreviations
AACE Advancement of Cost Engineering
AIS American Iron and Steel
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BABA Build America, Buy America
BFE base flood elevation
BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.

CCC California Coastal Commission
CCTV closed circuit television
cfs cubic feet per second
CIP Capital Improvement Plan/capital improvement program City City of Pacifica
CNAP California‐Nevada Climate Applications Program
CWSRF California Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterpirses
DCIA directly connected impervious area
d/H depth to height
DDF depth‐duration‐frequency
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DOF California Department of Finance
General Plan ͮͬͰͬ General Plan
DWR Department of Water Resources
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance
fps feet per second
ft feet
GIS Geographic Information System
gpm gallons per minute
h hour
HGL hydraulic grade line
hp horsepower
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
LID low impact development
Master Plan Storm Drainage System Master Plan
mgd million gallons per day
MHHW mean higher high water

11.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | ABBREVIATIONS viii | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
MSL mean sea level
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
O&M operations and maintenance
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSG Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants R/R rehabilitation/replacement
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SLR sea level rise
SOI sphere of influence
sq ft square feet
SWMM‐CAT Storm Water Management Model Climate Adjustment Tool SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEDA United States Economic Development Administration USDOE United States Department of Energy
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
V&A V&A Consulting Engineers
WIFIA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
yr year

11.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | ES‐ͭ
ES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction
The City of Pacifica (City) collects and disposes of storm water runoff generated within the City service area. The storm drainage collection system consists of roughly ͱͲ miles of drainage lines and two pump stations. The collection system consists of pipes with varying in diameters from Ͱ inches to ͭͮͬ inches that discharge to numerous outfalls to the Pacifica Ocean.

The purpose of this Storm Drainage System Master Plan is to identify capacity deficiencies in the storm drainage system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, and plan the infrastructure that will serve future development.

ES.2 Study Area
The ͮͬͰͬ General Plan (General Plan) planning boundary is the study area boundary for this Storm Drainage System Master Plan (Master Plan). The study area and the ͮͬͰͬ General Plan planning areas are synonymous and are used interchangeably throughout this report.

The City’s planning area consists of the City and the City’s sphere of influence (SOI), a total area of ͳ,ͲͲͱ acres. Over ͯ,Ͳͬͬ of the ͳ,ͲͲͱ acres (Ͱͳ‐percent) of this land is preserved as open space.

Figure ES.ͭ shows the study area. The City limits extend approximately Ͳ.ͱ miles along the Pacific Ocean (elevation at sea level), and three miles inland at its widest point. The City’s SOI is nearly conterminous with the City limits, with an additional ͲͬͲ acres of unincorporated land along the City’s southern boundary. The planning area is comprised of approximately Ͱͳ percent open space, ͯͮ percent urban space, ͭͲ percent undeveloped space, and five percent agricultural land. Land west of Highway ͭ in Pacifica is in the Coastal Zone, which is comprised of ͭ,ͮʹͲ acres and is subject to the regulations in the California Coast Act of ͭ͵ͳͲ. This Master Plan contains a forecast of storm drainage system improvements within the current City limits.

This Master Plan is intended to serve as a guiding document for the planning and implementation of system improvements to address rehabilitation/replacement of aging infrastructure and accommodate future growth at buildout within the City’s service area. The planning horizon for this Master Plan is through year ͮͬͰͬ.

ES.3 Flow Monitoring
Carollo contracted with V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) to conduct a temporary flow monitoring program within the City’s storm drain system. The purpose of the flow monitoring program was to assist in updating the City’s storm drainage system hydraulic/hydrologic model.

Flow monitoring data was also used to calibrate the storm drainage system model. Flow and rainfall monitoring was conducted between December ͭͮ, ͮͬͮͭ to January ͭͭ, ͮͬͮͮ.

A total of five flow meters were installed in the City’s storm drainage system at locations selected by Carollo and the City. The meter sites were selected to verify runoff rates in areas of the storm drainage system with known or suspected capacity limitations. The flow monitoring

11.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐ͮ | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
program captured runoff rates in the system for a period of relatively significant rainfall, particularly for the December ͭͮ‐ͭͳ, ͮͬͮͭ rainfall event. This monitoring data was used to update and calibrate the City’s storm drainage system hydraulic/hydrologic model.

ES.4 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis
The storm drainage system was evaluated using InfoSWMM modeling software. The previous model was created with HͮOMAP SWMM; this model was used as a starting point for the model software update. InfoSWMM supports United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Storm Water Management Model Climate Adjustment Tool (SWMM‐CAT) to simulate rainfall runoff for existing and future rainfall events.

The reasonableness of the model results and the hydraulic grade line profiles were evaluated during the initial model runs. This was accomplished by comparing areas of flooding predicted by the model with observations offered by the City. Areas around the City that experience flooding were confirmed by the model results. In addition, the model was calibrated against the flow monitoring data collected during the temporary flow monitoring program. The model calibration confirmed that the hydraulic/hydrologic model predicted runoff rates matched up well with the field measured data, and was suitable for use in evaluating the capacity of the system.

Following the verification process, the model was used for the existing and future storm drainage system analysis. The model was run under the existing ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year design storms, and areas of flooding were noted. Projects to mitigate the modeled system flooding were then identified. A future system analysis was also conducted to account for future growth and the projected increase in rainfall due to climate change. The future system analysis did not flag any additional deficiencies in the system.

ES.5 Proposed Improvements
Figure ES.ͮ illustrates the proposed storm drainage system improvements recommended as part of this Master Plan. The projects primarily address model simulated flooding under the existing ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year design storm events, as well as projects to address the areas of concern noted by the City’s residents. Additionally, this Master Plan recommends the implementation of a storm drain maintenance and inspection program as a part of a long‐term rehabilitation/replacement program. This maintenance program is described in detail in Chapter ͳ of this Master Plan.

11.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 29, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Open Channel
Roadways
Study Area
Waterbody
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure ES.1 Study Area
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐Ͱ | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
‐This Page Intentionally Left Blank‐

11.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) ")=
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
LM-1
EE-1
RW-1
WLM-1
EE-2
V-1
MR-1C
EE-4
EE-3
SP-1B
WLM-2
MR-1A

SNEATH LN
OCEANA
BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR

KING DR

ROSITA RD
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL

MISSION RD
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

SKYLINE BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

PEREZ DR

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE

INVERNESS DR
SP-1A
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 29, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
")= Lift Station Project
Pipeline Project
!P Outfall
Study Area
Storm Drain by Diameter
Unknown Diameter
8" or Smaller
10" - 24"
Larger than 24"
Open Channels
Waterways
Roadways
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure ES.2 Proposed Improvements
280
1 35
MR-1B
MR-2
SP-1C
SP-2

11.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐Ͳ | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
‐This Page Intentionally Left Blank‐

11.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | ES‐ͳ
ES.5.1 West Linda Mar Improvements
City staff have historically noted flooding in the vicinity of Montezuma Drive and De Solo Drive.

The hydraulic/hydrologic model also predicted flooding would occur in this location during the ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year design storm events. The recommended improvement at this location is consistent with the recommended project included in the ͮͬͭͮ Storm Drainage System Master Plan, and consists of the following:
 WLM‐ͭ: This project includes the installation of a new ͯͲ‐inch pipeline from ͳͭͭ Linda Mar Blvd to the corner of Linda Mar Blvd and Highway ͭ. The ͯͲ‐inch pipeline would continue along Highway ͭ to the existing manhole at the northern corner of the Chevron gas station.
 WLM‐ͮ: This project includes the installation of a new ͯͬ‐inch pipeline from the corner of Peralta Road and Linda Mar Blvd to ͳͭͭ Linda Mar Blvd.

ES.5.2 Monterey Road Improvements
Numerous drainage issues were reported in the vicinity of Monterey Road from Hickey Boulevard down to Highway ͭ. The drainage issues reported included severe flooding on Monterey Road and Nelson Avenue during large storm events, such as the October ͮͬͮͭ rainfall event, as issues within Big Inch Creek, including flooding and erosion concerns, behind the homes on Nelson Avenue and Monterey Road. The proposed improvements in the Monterey Road area include:
 MR‐ͭA/MR‐ͭB/MR‐ͭC: This project includes the construction of a new ͭʹ‐inch diameter and ͯͬ‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline in Monterey Road. The ͭʹ‐inch diameter storm drain would intercept runoff that would normally flow into Big Inch Creek, as well as runoff that currently can flow down Monterey Road and flood the street, and would extend from roughly ͳͱͬ‐feet southeast of Hickey Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard. The proposed ͯͬ‐inch diameter storm drain would extend from Hickey Boulevard west to the existing ͯͬ‐inch storm drain just east of Waterford Street.  MR‐ͮ: It is also recommended that a new storm drain pipeline be constructed in Nelson Avenue from Perry Avenue to the existing Ͱͮ‐inch diameter storm drain just west of Johnson Avenue.

An alternative concept for projects MR‐ͭA and ͭB was also developed. The alternative alignment would construct a new ͯͬ‐inch diameter buried storm drain in Big Inch Creek rather than the proposed storm drain on Monterey Road. A smaller creek would remain above the new storm drain pipeline. This Master Plan assumes that the pipeline in Monterey Road would be constructed, however, the City could reconsider that alternative alignment in Big Inch Creek during the preliminary design phase of the project, as appropriate.

ES.5.3 Sharp Park Improvements
This drainage area includes one of the City’s most significant and recurring flooding areas that regularly threatens businesses and residences. Flooding issues are caused by a combination of low‐lying invert elevations and backwater effects/blockages from the existing outfall to Laguna Salada. The recommended improvements to this area will help the City to more effectively manage the interaction between the water level in Laguna Salada and the City’s storm drainage infrastructure. This Master Plan recommends the following:

11.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐ʹ | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
 Sharp Park Pump Station, Force Main, and Outfall (SP‐ͭA, SP‐ͭB, SP‐ͭC): It is recommended that a new permanent storm drainage system pump station be constructed near the intersection of Clarendon Road and Lakeside Avenue. A new ͯͬ‐inch force main and outfall is also recommended.
 SP‐ͮ: The hydraulic model indicated that a short, ͳͬ foot reach of existing storm drain line at the intersection of Brighton Road and Palmetto Avenue is undersized and could contribute to localized flooding under large storm events. It is recommended that a new ͮͭ‐inch diameter storm drain be constructed.

ES.5.4 Edgemar Improvements
The hydraulic model indicated that the existing storm drain line on Edgemar Avenue from Avalon Drive to Arroyo Drive is undersized, and could contribute to localized flooding under the ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year design storm events. In addition, the tributary area to this pipeline does not currently have storm drain infrastructure, which has contributed to street flooding in the area in the past. The following projects are recommended for this area:
• EE‐ͭ: This project would replace the existing storm drain pipeline on Edgemar Avenue from Avalon Drive to Arroyo Drive with a new ͮͰ‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline. • EE‐ͮ through EE‐Ͱ: It is recommended that a new system of ͭͱ‐inch and ͭʹ‐inch diameter storm drain pipelines be constructed on Edgemar Avenue (EE‐ͮ from Avalon Drive to Manor Drive), Avalon Drive (EE‐ͯ from Edgemar Avenue to Perry Avenue), and Manor Drive (EE‐Ͱ from Edgemar Avenue to Perry Avenue) to more efficiently convey runoff from the East Edgemar Basins to the proposed EE‐ͭ project, thereby reducing the potential for future flooding in this area.

ES.5.5 Rockaway Beach Avenue
There is a natural spring on Rockaway Beach Avenue which has led to a small amount of nuisance water that flows on the street throughout the year. The following is recommended:
 RW‐ͭ: This project includes the construction of a short reach (ͯͲͬ feet) of storm drain line to convey runoff from the natural spring to an adjacent creek.

ES.5.6 Madeira Drive Improvements
The hydraulic/hydrologic model indicated that there is a potential for street flooding on Madeira Drive east of Capistrano Drive under larger (ͱͬ year+) storm events. The following is recommended:
 LM‐ͭ: This project includes the construction of roughly ͭ͵ͬ‐feet of new ͯͬ‐inch storm drain from Madeira Drive to San Pedro Creek.

ES.5.7 Lauren Avenue Improvements
City staff noted that there is currently no storm drain infrastructure on Lauren Avenue south of Reina Del Mar Avenue. The following project is recommended:
 V‐ͭ: This project is meant to more effectively convey runoff generated on Lauren Avenue and includes the construction of approximately ͳͬͬ feet of new ͭͱ‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline.

11.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | ES‐͵
ES.6 Capital Improvement Plan
Carollo contracted with Freyer & Laureta, Inc. to develop planning level cost estimates for the proposed improvements. The project costs are in ͮͬͮͮ dollars. The estimated costs are considered Class Ͱ estimates as defined by Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) standards, with an expected accuracy range of ‐ͯͬ to +ͱͬ percent. The report discusses in greater detail project cost line items and contingencies. The recommended improvements were grouped and prioritized into three improvement categories.  Category ͭ: Projects to mitigate severe flooding under the ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year design storms.
 Category ͮ: Project to address drainage issues that are less severe than Category ͭ.  Category ͯ: Projects to address model simulated flooding that have not historically been observed, and projects to extend storm drain infrastructure to unserved areas.

A summary of the capital project costs is presented in Table ES.ͭ. The table also shows the capital cost by project category.

Table ES.ͭ Capital Improvement Plan Cost Summary
Project Name Project
Number
Capital Improvement Cost by Category (͈) Capital
Improvement
Cost(ͭ) (͈) ͭ ͮ ͯ
Lower Linda Mar WLM‐ͭ
WLM‐ͮ ͈ͱ,ͮͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͱ,ͮͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Monterey Road
MR‐ͭA
MR‐ͭB
MR‐ͭC
MR‐ͮ
͈Ͳ,͵ͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈Ͳ,͵ͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Sharp Park
SP‐ͭA
SP‐ͭB
SP‐ͭC
SP‐ͮ
͈Ͳ,ͬͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈Ͳ,ͬͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Edgemar Avenue
EE‐ͭ
EE‐ͮ
EE‐ͯ
EE‐Ͱ
͈ͱ,ͬͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͱ,ͬͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Rockway Beach Avenue RW‐ͭ ͈ͳͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͳͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Madeira Drive LM‐ͭ ͈ͱͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͱͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Lauren Avenue V‐ͭ ͈ͭ,ͮͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͭ,ͮͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Total ͈ͭʹ,ͭͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͱ,ͬͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͮ,Ͱͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ͈ͮͱ,ͱͬͬ,ͬͬͬ
Notes:
(ͭ) Cost estimates were developed by Freyer and Lauretta and are Class Ͱ estimates and defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in ͮͬͮͮ dollars.

ES.7 Funding Options
This Master Plan identifies approximately ͮͱ.ͱ million dollars in recommended capital improvements. For the City, it is challenging to implement storm drain capacity upgrades due to the lack of funding for these types of projects. Carollo developed high‐level overview of some options for acquiring funding for the projects recommended in this plan. There are two main

11.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐ͭͬ | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
options that were examined as part of this high‐level review. These are grant and loan opportunities, and the development of a stormwater utility.

Grant and loans are an ideal way to fund stormwater projects, if feasible. Due to the City’s demographics, however, securing grants and loans for stormwater projects may be challenging, but not impossible. In order to give the City the best chance as securing a grant or a loan, it is recommended that the City commence some level of design for the recommended projects, as this is viewed as more favorable by the State and Federal Government.

Development of a stormwater utility is another way of establishing a funding mechanism for the recommended improvements. The Master Plan provides a high level road map of the steps needed to develop a stormwater utility. If the City’s residents would support the development of a stormwater utility, this option could provide a sustainable funding source for stormwater improvements in the future.

11.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 1 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 1-1
Chapter 1

BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of the purpose and objectives of this Storm Drainage System Master Plan (Master Plan), the scope of the study, and the report organization to assist the reader in navigating this Master Plan report.

1.2 Background
The City of Pacifica (City) is located along the Pacific Coast of the San Francisco Peninsula, in San Mateo County (Figure 1.1). The City is bordered on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by Daly City, and on the south and east by ridges of the Coastal Range, the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and unincorporated San Mateo County. Highway 1 is the main highway corridor through the City, which connects to Interstate 280 for regional travel. The City is approximately 13 miles south of downtown San Francisco and 40 miles northwest of San Jose.

The City is highly residential, although tourism and the fishing industries are major components of the City’s economy. The City’s location along Highway 1 makes it a stopover point for travelers and people visiting the coast, while the Pacifica Pier is a popular location for visitors and anglers alike. The City was incorporated in 1957.

The City collects and disposes of storm water runoff generated within the City service area. The storm drainage collection system consists of roughly 56 miles of drainage lines and two pump stations. The collection system consists of pipes with varying in diameters from 4 inches to 120 inches, that discharge to numerous outfalls to the Pacifica Ocean. Figure 1.2 illustrates the City’s current storm drainage system service area.

1.3 Study Purpose, Scope, and Authorization
The purpose of this Master Plan is to identify capacity deficiencies in the storm drainage system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, and plan the infrastructure that will serve future development. On September 13, 2021, the City approved a professional service agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) to prepare this Master Plan for the storm drainage system, which included the following nine tasks:
• Project Management
• Data Collection and Assessment of the Existing Storm Drain System • Flow Monitoring and Analysis
• Hydrological/Hydraulic Model Development
• System Performance Evaluation and Improvement Needs
• Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement Program • Long-Range Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Development • Analysis of Stormwater Funding Options
• Master Plan Preparation

11.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

1.4 Report Organization
The storm drainage system master plan report contains seven chapters, followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the report. The chapters are briefly described below:
• Chapter 1: Background. This chapter presents a summary of the storm drainage system service area, the purpose, and scope for this Master Plan, and the objectives of the study. Referenced documents are also listed.
• Chapter 2: Study Area: This chapter presents a description of the study area, defines the land use classifications, and summarizes the historical population trends. • Chapter 3: Flow Monitoring: This chapter presents a summary of stormwater flow data, rain gauge locations, and classification of the design storm event. • Chapter 4: Planning Criteria: This chapter presents the planning criteria for evaluating the storm drainage system. The planning criteria address the storm drainage system capacity, gravity storm pipe slopes, maximum flood depths, storm runoff coefficients, and climate change.
• Chapter 5: Storm Drainage System Facilities and Hydraulic Model: This chapter presents an overview of the City’s storm drainage facilities. This chapter also describes the development of the City's storm drainage hydrologic and hydraulic models. These models were used for identifying existing system deficiencies and for recommending improvements.
• Chapter 6: Capacity Evaluation and Proposed Improvements: This chapter presents the results of the capacity evaluation of the storm drainage system and the proposed projects that correct capacity deficiencies and serve future users. • Chapter 7: Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement Program: This chapter presents recommendations for the City to develop a storm drainage system maintenance, inspection, and rehabilitation/replacement program. • Chapter 8: Capital Improvement Program: This chapter presents the capital improvement program and projects and a summary of the capital costs. • Chapter 9: Funding Options: This chapter presents various options to fund projects that were presented in the capital improvement plan to assist the city in making finance decisions.

1.5 Acknowledgments
Carollo Engineers wishes to acknowledge and thank Mr. Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer, Ms. Lisa Petersen, Public Works Director, Mr. Sam Bautista, Former Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Mr. Raymund Donguines, Senior Civil Engineer; Mr. Paul Lavorini, Field Services Manager; Mr. Louis Langi, Streets Superintendent; and Mr. Christian Murdock, Deputy Director of Planning. They played a key role in development of the Master Plan.

1.6 Reference Material
Appendix A includes a detailed list of documents that were referenced in the preparation of this Master Plan.

11.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN
S
H
A
R
P
PARK
RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 11, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Roadways
Pacifica City Boundary
Waterbody
CHAPTER 1 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 1.1 City of Pacifica
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 11, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Roadways
Storm Drain Service Area
Waterbody
Pacifica City Boundary
CHAPTER 1 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 1.2 Storm Drain Service Area
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 2 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 2-1
Chapter 2

STUDY AREA
This chapter presents a description of the study area, defines the planning horizon, climate, and topography, summarizes the land use classifications and future development of the study area, and presents historical and future population projections.

2.1 Study Area
The 2040 General Plan (General Plan) planning boundary is the study area boundary for this Master Plan. The study area and the Draft 2040 General Plan planning areas are synonymous and are used interchangeably throughout this report.

The City’s planning area consists of the City and the City’s sphere of influence (SOI), a total area of 7,665 acres. Over 3,600 of the 7,665 acres (47 percent) of this land is preserved as open space.

Figure 2.1 shows the study area. The City limits extend approximately 6.5 miles along the Pacific Ocean (elevation at sea level), and three miles inland at its widest point. The City’s SOI is nearly conterminous with the City limits, with an additional 606 acres of unincorporated land along the City’s southern boundary. The planning area is comprised of approximately 47 percent open space, 32 percent urban space, 16 percent vacant or undeveloped space, and five percent agricultural land. Land west of Highway 1 in Pacifica is in the Coastal Zone, which is comprised of 1,286 acres and is subject to the regulations in the California Coast Act of 1976. This Master Plan contains a forecast of storm drainage system improvements within the current City limits.

2.2 Planning Horizon
This Master Plan is intended to serve as a guiding document for the planning and implementation of system improvements to address rehabilitation/replacement of aging infrastructure and accommodate future growth at buildout within the City’s service area. The planning horizon for this Master Plan is through year 2040.

2.3 Climate and Topography
The City’s coastal location results in a generally wet climate, with cold, wet winters and mild summers. The City’s wet season typically extends from October through May, though most of the City’s rainfall occurs between November and April. The City receives fog throughout the year that can produce a light to moderate drizzle. Mean annual precipitation in Pacifica is approximately 30 inches. Table 2.1 summarizes the study area’s climate. The topography of the City is highly variable, ranging from coastline elevations of zero to hillside elevations in the Coastal Range of approximately 1,200 feet. Pacifica’s topography is salient for its high proportion of open, undeveloped land and rugged ridges that border the City. The City is not organized around a center, rather, its urban structure is subject to the variable coastline topography.

11.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT -This Page Intentionally Left Blank -

11.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 28, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Roadways
Open Channel
Study Area
Waterbody
CHAPTER 2 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 2.1 Study Area
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 2 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 2-5
Table 2.1 Study Area Climate
Month Average Temperature(1) (degrees Fahrenheit) Average Total Precipitation(1)
Minimum Maximum (inches)
January 46.0 56.9 5.56
February 46.4 58.8 6.08
March 46.8 60.9 4.03
April 47.7 63.0 1.90
May 49.7 65.2 1.11
June 51.5 68.4 0.22
July 52.8 69.9 0.02
August 53.5 70.5 0.08
September 54.0 71.5 0.29
October 53.1 68.8 1.46
November 49.8 62.0 3.30
December 46.4 56.8 5.99
Average or Total 49.8 64.4 30.04
Notes:
(1) Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Pacifica 4 SSE Station (046599), https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6599

2.4 100 Year Floodplain
Maps indicating “special flood hazard areas” (i.e. floodplains) have been developed through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Areas of particular importance for insurance purposes are those that are subject to inundation by a 100-year flood event. Figure 2.2 shows the 100-year floodplain boundary for the current City limits and General Plan boundary.

This Master Plan assumes that existing undeveloped land within the 100-year floodplain will not be developed in the future. These areas, therefore, are assumed to generate no future urban storm water runoff through build-out. If any development does occur within the floodplain, the anticipated increase in storm water runoff generated from these projects should have relatively little impact on the proposed storm drain projects in this Master Plan. If the floodplain area changes in size and results in more development, then the City should consider evaluating the impacts on downstream storm drainage facilities as applicable.

2.5 Land Use
At the time of writing this Master Plan, the City adopted its General Plan that revised the overall City vision and policies for land use, economic development, environmental protection, and infrastructure investment through 2040. Current and projected land use information is an integral component in determining the amount of storm water runoff generated within the City because the type of land use in an area will affect the volume and peak flow of the storm water runoff. Adequately estimating the quantity of storm water runoff from various land use types is important in sizing and maintaining effective storm drainage system facilities.

11.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
Land use assumptions used in this study are consistent with the land use alternatives provided in the supporting documents to the 2040 General Plan. Since the land use assumptions forecast the type of growth within the study area, this association to the Master Plan should ensure that the future storm water runoff and facilities required to serve future growth are consistent with the City’s guiding document on development. The 2040 General Plan land uses within the City are illustrated in Figure 2.3.

More detailed information related to the land use designations within the service area in provided in Appendix B for reference.

2.6 Population
Pacifica is highly residential, although tourism and the fishing industries are major components of the City’s economy. Because of this, the City’s growth rate is modest and depends on development trends. Except during the period from 1960 through 1970, when the City experienced rapid annual growth of approximately 5.4 percent, the City’s average annual growth has remained low, between 0.2 and 0.9 percent, with some periods of decline. According to data collected from the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population as of January 1, 2021 was approximately 38,088, and as of January 1, 2022 the population decreased to 37,533.

Historical population trends have been variable, with a net increase between 1990 and 2000, followed by decline between 2000 and 2010. The City is slightly below its highest population of 38,320 in 2000. The City’s population is projected to increase slightly by 2040, according to the 2040 General Plan update. The buildout population is projected to be 40,990 which is 7.6 percent higher than the 2022 population.

2.7 Known Developments
As previously mentioned, the City’s future population is expected to increase modestly by buildout, however there are several planned or known developments that are being tracked by the City’s planning department. In general, future development is not expected to have a significant impact on the City’s storm drainage system, because the City has implemented a low impact development (LID) approach for new developments, whereby the post project storm runoff cannot exceed the pre project runoff rates into the system. More information related to LID principals is provided in Chapter 4.

Carollo discussed planned or known developments with the City’s planning department, and a list of projects that may potentially be relevant to the storm drainage system were provided to Carollo. These known developments are shown on Figure 2.4. More detailed information related to each known development is provided in Appendix C.

11.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 28, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Study Area
Roadways
Waterways
Waterbody
FEMA Flood Zones
1% Annual Chance of Flooding

0.2% Annual Chance of flooding
CHAPTER 2 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 2.2 100-Year Floodplain Boundary
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 2 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 2-9
Figure 2.3 General Plan Land Use

11.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-10 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT-This Page Intentionally Left Blank -

11.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN
OC
EANA
B
LVD

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR

KING DR

ROSITA RD
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL

MISSION RD
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

SKYLINE BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

PEREZ DR

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE

INVERNESS DR
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 14, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Active Planning Applications
Future Development Areas
Study Area
Model Storm Drainage Lines
Unknown Diameter
Smaller than 8"
10" - 24"
Larger than 24"
Open Channels
Waterways
Waterbody
CHAPTER 2 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 2.4 Known Developments
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-12 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 3 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 3-1
Chapter 3

FLOW MONITORING
This chapter includes a summary of the data collected as part of the temporary flow monitoring program conducted as part of this Master Plan.

3.1 Temporary Flow Monitoring Program
Carollo contracted with V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) to conduct a temporary flow monitoring program within the City’s storm drain system. V&A prepared the stand alone Storm Drain Master Plan Flow Monitoring, which is included in Appendix D. Flow monitoring was performed from December 12, 2021 to January 11, 2022 at five flow monitoring sites.

The purpose of the flow monitoring program was to assist in updating the City’s storm drainage system hydraulic/hydrologic model (see Chapter 5 for more detailed information related to the hydraulic/hydrologic model). Flow monitoring data was also used to calibrate the storm drainage system model. Flow and rainfall monitoring was also conducted between December 12, 2021 to January 11, 2022.

3.1.1 Flow Monitoring Sites and Tributary Areas
A total of five flow meters were installed at locations selected by Carollo and the City. The meter sites were selected to verify runoff rates in areas of the storm drainage system with known or suspected capacity limitations, based on the hydraulic analysis performed as part of the 2012 Storm Drainage System Master Plan. Table 3.1 lists the flow monitoring locations and the pipe diameters where the meters were installed. The five flow monitoring sites as well as the tributary area to each site, are shown on Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1 Flow Monitoring Locations
Monitoring
Site Monitored Pipe Pipe Diameter (inches) Location
Site P1 Northeast Inlet 42.5 Hwy 1 & Monterey Road
Site P2 West Outlet 49 Edgemar Ave, south of Arroyo Drive Site P3 Northwest Inlet 47.75 Francisco Boulevard
Site P4 East Inlet 62 Behind houses off Anza Drive access from northeast
Site P5 East Inlet 36H x 48W box De Solo Drive between Arguello & Linda Mar Abbreviations:

H = height; W = width

3.1.2 Flowmeter Installation and Flow Calculation
V&A installed five Hach FL904 flow meters for temporary monitoring within the storm drainage system. This type of meter uses submerged sensors with a pressure transducer to collect depth readings and an ultrasonic Doppler sensor to determine the average fluid velocity. The ultrasonic sensor emits high-frequency sound waves, which are reflected by air bubbles and suspended

11.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
particles in the flow. The sensor receives the reflected signal and determines the Doppler frequency shift, which indicates the estimated average flow velocity. The sensor is typically mounted at a manhole inlet to take advantage of smoother upstream flow conditions. The sensor may be offset to one side to lessen the chances of fouling and sedimentation where these problems are expected to occur. Manual level and velocity measurements were taken during the installation of the flow meters and again when they were removed and compared to simultaneous level and velocity readings from the flow meters to ensure proper calibration and accuracy.

Data retrieved from the flowmeters was placed into a spreadsheet program for analysis. Data analysis included data comparison to field calibration measurements, as well as necessary geometric adjustments as required for sediment (sediment reduces the pipe’s wetted cross-sectional area available to carry flow). The flow at each meter was calculated at 5-minute intervals based on the continuity equation:

Q = V x A = V x (AT-AS)
where:

Q = Pipeline flow rate, cubic feet per second (cfs)
V = Average velocity, feet per second (fps)
A = Cross-sectional flow area, square feet (sq ft)
AT = Total cross-sectional area with both wastewater and sediment AS = Cross-sectional area of sediment
Finally, the 5-minute flow, velocity, and level data were aggregated into 15-minute increments.

3.1.3 Rainfall Collection
V&A collected data from six publicly available private weather stations to characterize how rainfall is distributed across the study area. After performing quality assurance/quality control on the data from those with rain gauge stations, five were identified with good data, allowing for good coverage over the flow monitoring area. The rain gauge sites are shown on Figure 3.1.

3.2 Flow Monitoring Program Results
This section summarizes the results of the flow monitoring program, including measured flows, and rainfall data. Appendix D includes additional data summaries and other information associated with the temporary flow monitoring program.

11.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) g`
g`
g`
g`
g`
ÔÕ
ÔÕ
ÔÕ
ÔÕ
ÔÕ
ÔÕ

SNEATH LN
S
H
A
R
P
PARK
RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

INVERNESS DR
Site P3
Site P2
Site P1
Site P5
Site P4
North
Centraleast
Central
Southeast
Southwest
South
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 11, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
ÔÕ
Rain Gauge
g` Flow Meter
Open Channels
Model Storm Drainage Lines
Roadways
Study Area
Waterbody
CHAPTER 3 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 3.1 Rain Gauge and Flow Monitoring Sites
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 3 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 3-5

3.2.1 Rainfall Data
The rainfall data collected by V&A was used to correlate response observed in the storm drain system to specific storm recurrence intervals. There were two major rainfall events that occurred during the flow monitoring program. The first event occurred between December 12 and December 17, 2021 and the second occurred between December 21 and December 30, 2021.

It is important to classify the size of any major storm event captured during the flow monitoring period. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 provides precipitation frequency estimates for the United States based on historical rainfall data and serves as the industry standard for determining total rainfall depth at specified frequencies and durations. NOAA Atlas 14 provides precipitation frequency estimates for 5-minute through 60-day durations at average recurrence intervals of 1 year through 1,000 years.

The short and long duration classification of the storm events from each rain gauge location are summarized in Table 3.2. As shown in Table 3.2, Rainfall Event 1 was a relatively significant wet weather event, ranging from a 2-year event up to a 26-year return interval event, depending on the rain gauge. Rain Event 2 was a relatively less intense storm, with a return intervals up to a 3-year event, depending on the rain gauge.

Table 3.2 Rainfall Data Summary
Rain Gauge Name
Rainfall Event(1)
December 12-17, 2021
Rainfall Event(2)
December 21-29, 2021
Short Duration Long Duration Short Duration Long Duration North 5-yr, 12-h 3-yr, 4-Day <1-yr <1-yr
Central East 2-yr, 24-h 1.5-yr, 4-Day <1-yr <1-yr
Central 9-yr, 12-h 4-yr, 4-Day 1.5-yr, 6-h 1-yr, 9-Day
Southwest (SW) 18-yr, 2-Day 21-yr, 4-Day 2-yr, 8-h 2-yr, 9-Day South 24-yr, 2-Day 26-yr, 4-Day 3-yr, 8-h 2-yr, 9-Day
Southeast (SE) 24-yr, 2-Day 15-yr, 4-Day 2-yr, 8-h 2-yr, 9-Day Notes:
(1) Source: V&A 2022 Storm Drain Master Plan Flow Monitoring (Appendix B). (2) Based on NOAA Atlas 14 classification for each location.

Abbreviations:
yr = year; h = hour

3.2.2 Flow Monitoring Data
Peak measured flows and the flow elevation at the peak flow are important to understanding the capacity of a storm sewer system, both in terms of conveyance and potential flooding. The peak flows and flow levels reported are from the peak measurements as taken across the entirety of the flow monitoring period. Table 3.3 summarizes the peak recorded flows, levels, and depth to height (d/H) ratios per site during the flow monitoring period. Capacity analysis data is presented on a site-by-site basis and represents the hydraulic conditions only at the point site location for the duration of the flow monitoring program only; hydraulic conditions in other areas of the collection system will differ, as will peak measured flows and depths during a design storm.

The totalized flow is defined as the total flow that passed through the monitoring sites from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022.

11.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
Table 3.3 Peak Measured Flow and Depth During the Flow Monitoring Program Monitoring
Site
Peak Level
(inches)
Diameter/Height
(inches) d/H Peak Measured Flow (mgd)
Totalized Flow
(gallons)
Site P1 5.28 42.50 0.12 6.64 15,165,000
Site P2 15.1 49.00 0.31 39.75 74,783,000
Site P3 10.32 47.75 0.22 10.83 31,564,000
Site P4 100.71 62.00 1.72 27.10 25,253,000
Site P5 40.13 36.00 1.11 26.46 40,368,000
Abbreviations:
mgd = million gallons per day

3.3 Flow Monitoring Program Summary
A total of five flow meters were installed in the City’s storm drainage system at locations selected by Carollo and the City. The meter sites were selected to verify runoff rates in areas of the storm drainage system with known or suspected capacity limitations. The flow monitoring program captured runoff rates in the system for a period of relatively significant rainfall, particularly for the December 12-17, 2021 rainfall event. This monitoring data was used to update and calibrate the City’s storm drainage system hydraulic/hydrologic model, which is described in more detail in Chapter 5.

11.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-1
Chapter 4

PLANNING CRITERIA
The capacity of the City’s storm drainage collection system was evaluated based on the planning criteria defined in this chapter. The criteria were established to assess the performance of the storm drainage system, as simulated by the computer hydraulic model, and for sizing future facilities.

4.1 Hydrologic Criteria
This section describes the hydrologic characteristics of the City and the design storms that were used to estimate existing and future storm flows.

4.1.1 Precipitation Characteristics
The City’s coastal location results in a generally wet climate, with a wet season extending from October through May. However, most of the City’s rainfall typically occurs between November and April. The City receives fog throughout the year that can produce a light to moderate drizzle.

Mean annual precipitation in Pacifica is approximately 30.0 inches1 .

4.1.2 Elements of the Design Storm
The required capacity of storm drainage facilities depends on the selected level of protection to be provided by those facilities. The level of protection is often expressed in terms of the frequency, or return period, of the storm for which the facilities are to prevent damage or for which the facilities will safely pass the storm water flows. This storm is referred to as the design storm and is an idealized representation of a typical storm with a specified return period.

Selection of the design storm can have a significant impact on the size and cost of required drainage facilities. There are three elements of a design storm: precipitation depth, duration, and frequency.

4.1.2.1 Precipitation Depth
Precipitation depth is the amount of precipitation occurring during a specified storm duration.

The depths of rainfall are statistical depths obtained by studying historical precipitation data to find the depth for each duration and for a particular frequency. Precipitation depth is usually expressed in inches.
1 Source: Mean annual precipitation is for Pacifica 4 SSE (046599) station, from the Western Regional Climate Center. Period of record 1983 to 2012.

11.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

4.1.2.2 Duration
Duration is the specified length of storm time considered. Duration of a design storm event should be at least four times the response time of the basin. The response time is the time required for the peak flow to reach the point of interest, such as a structure, outlet, or spillway.

When the design of storage facilities is involved, the duration should be sufficiently long so that the runoff and storage volumes return to near their level at the beginning of the simulation.

Duration may be expressed in any time unit such as minutes, hours, or days.

4.1.2.3 Frequency
Frequency is the number of occurrences of events with the specified precipitation depth and duration. It is expressed in terms of return period. To provide a reasonable level of flood protection, the statistical concept of return period or recurrence interval is utilized, which aids in assigning a probabilistic meaning to a precipitation event.

4.1.3 Design Storms
Two design storms were used for the evaluation of the City’s existing storm drainage system and for sizing future storm drainage facilities. The 24-hour, 10-year event was used for evaluating storm conveyance facilities, while the 24-hour, 50-year event was used for evaluating the combined capacity of depression storage areas, streets, and pipes. The 10-year and 50-year recurrence intervals are standard selections in California because they provide a balance between level of service and affordability and provide reasonable standards of care. Five-minute time steps were used in this analysis. The design storm volumes for existing conditions were estimated using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s (NOAA’s) Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates2, which is an industry-standard source that provides the most up-to-date estimates of the 10-year and 50-year, 24-hour event volumes for various locations throughout the United States. In addition, Carollo conducted an analysis of the potential change in the design storm volumes associated with climate change. The results of the climate change analysis are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.

The City’s design storms were developed using United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standardized 24-hour distribution curves (Type II) with historical precipitation data. Depth-duration-frequency (DDF) relationships for this region are available from the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which were used to derive rainfall hyetographs for the City’s design storms. Figure 4.1 illustrates the existing 24-hour design storms for the 10-year and 50-year recurrence intervals. Figure 4.2 illustrates the future 24-hour design storms for the 10-year and 50-year recurrence intervals. Table 4.1 summarizes the design storm characteristics for the 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events under existing and projected future conditions (taking climate change impacts into account). It should be noted that the 100-year event is provided for reference, but was not used to evaluate the capacity of the storm drainage system as part of this study. The City’s system was not originally intended to accommodate runoff associated with a 100-year event, and therefore it is expected that the capital improvements associated with providing this level of protection to the system would be cost prohibitive. However, the City could decide to design individual capital improvements recommended in this master plan to accommodate the 100-year design storm.

This decision can be made during the preliminary design phase of the projects. 2 Source: https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html

11.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-3
Figure 4.1 Existing 10-year and 50-year 24-hour Design Storms Table 4.1 Precipitation Depth-Duration Frequency
Planning
Period
10-Year 24-hour 50-Year 24-hour 100-Year, 24-Hour
Total
(inches)
Peak
Intensity
(inches/hr)
Total
(inches)
Peak
Intensity
(inches/hr)
Total
(inches)
Peak
Intensity
(inches/hr)
Existing(1) 3.84 0.60 5.32 0.84 6.00 0.94
Future (2045)(2) 4.61 0.72 6.38 1.00 7.20 1.14
Notes:
(1) Table derived from data collected from NOAA Atlas 14. (2) See Section 4.4 for more detailed information regarding increases in precipitation associated with climate change. The climate change analysis estimated that the projected mid-century increase in the design storm volume would be 26-percent, 21-percent, and 20-percent for the 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year events, respectively.

11.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
Figure 4.2 Future 10-year and 50-year 24-hour Design Storms

4.1.4 Soil Characteristics
For storm water modeling, key factors relating land use to runoff are percent impervious and percent pervious area of the modeled area. The following sections describe the planning criteria and methods used to characterize the soil and runoff characteristics for the City.

4.1.4.1 Impervious Area
Multi-spectral four band digital imagery from the USDA was used to determine land use imperviousness. Multispectral imagery captures near infrared wavelengths along with visible light to distinguish plant cover from other materials. Near infrared allows the user to identify vegetation, water bodies, and man-made features. Vegetation appears as shades of red, water as shades of blue or black, and urban areas as shades of blue-gray.

An image processing model was developed whereby impervious and pervious surfaces were classified from the satellite imagery bands and then extracted based on user-defined variables.

This classification included county-provided building footprints to further distinguish impervious surfaces from vegetation. After the initial imager reclassification, the results were extracted, and the surfaces were reclassified as either pervious or impervious cover.

4.1.4.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area
The basin proportion of directly connected or effective impervious area is related to land use, storm water drainage system configuration, and recurrence interval. If runoff from an impervious area flows directly into a concentrated flow path, i.e. into a gutter, it is considered directly connected. If it flows over a pervious area before becoming a concentrated flow, it is

11.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-5
unconnected. Rainfall on impervious surfaces is not subject to losses by infiltration into the soil; the only losses in impervious areas are due to depression storage. All initial losses for impervious areas, typically 0.02 to 0.08 inches, were assumed to be satisfied by precipitation preceding the design storm.

The imperviousness derived from the satellite imagery represents the total average impervious area in a subbasin. To convert average percent imperviousness to directly connected impervious area (DCIA), the following equation (developed by United States Geological Survey [USGS]) was used:
%𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = 3.6 + 0.43 (1)
A summary of the DCIA assumptions that were built into the hydraulic/hydrologic model is included in Chapter 5 for reference.

4.1.4.3 Non-Effective Percent Imperviousness
In residential urban areas, either a portion of the pervious runoff area has no flow path to the drainage system, or the flow path is via groundwater drains, which effectively delays runoff until it does not contribute to the design hydrographs. These areas are typically backyards, swimming pools, dense shrub landscaping, and gardens.

4.1.4.4 Pervious Area Runoff and Infiltration Parameters The remaining runoff originates from pervious areas. There are several ways to estimate the volume and/or the rate of infiltration of water into a soil. Three excellent estimation methods are Green-Ampt, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method, and Horton’s method. All of these equations provide a relatively accurate assessment of the infiltration characteristics of the soil in question. Infiltration into the soil in pervious areas was estimated for each subbasin by the model using the Horton equation. Horton and Green-Ampt are widely used in SWMM, especially when using SWMM runoff module. The Green-Ampt method accounts for multiple variables that other methods, such as Horton, do not. The Green-Ampt method is a function of the soil solution head, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and time. Some of these parameters are difficult to estimate.

On the other hand, Horton equation is an empirical formula that states that infiltration starts at a given rate and decreases exponentially with time. After a period when the soil saturation level reaches a certain value, the rate of infiltration will become constant. Parameters for the Horton equation can be reasonably estimated from literature and USDA soil data.

Because the Horton parameters vary depending on soil type, soil maps were examined to determine the soil type within each drainage area. Weighted average soil properties were determined for each SWMM model subcatchment area based on the amount of each hydrologic soil group in the subbasin, and typical soil properties for each group.

Four hydrologic soil groups are used. The soils are classified based on water intake at the end of long duration storms after prior wetting, an opportunity for swelling, and without the proactive effects of vegetation. The hydrologic soil groups are:

A. Soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

11.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
B. Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

C. Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

D. Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with high swelling potential, soils with permanent high-water table, soils with claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

By determining the percentages of each hydrologic soil group within a subbasin, maximum and minimum infiltration rates were calculated. The constant decay rate for Horton infiltration analysis was set to 0.0015 per second. Figure 4.3 shows the hydrologic soil groups within the City, which are based on data provided by the NRCS. As shown on Figure 4.3, the dominant Hydrologic Soil Group with the study area is Hydrologic Soil Group D, with a small portion designated as Hydrologic Soil Groups A and B. Each soil group is associated with the typical infiltration soil properties as listed in Table 4.2.

11.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

UNNAMED

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 15, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group
A
B
D
Roadways
Study Area
Waterbody
CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 4.3 NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-9
Table 4.2 Infiltration Rates for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups Soil Group Maximum Infiltration Rate (inches/hr) Minimum Infiltration Rate (inches/hr) A 2.0 0.065
B 1.5 0.050
C 1.0 0.035
D 0.5 0.020
Notes:
(1) Source: Data provided by the NRCS

4.1.4.5 Overland Flow
The overland flow travel time is affected by the type of surface cover and can be modeled using a different Manning’s coefficient (n) for various surface types. For each SWMM unit, roughness coefficients were input into the model for both pervious and impervious surfaces. Typical roughness coefficients, based on the types of ground cover, are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Parameters for Overland Flow
Surface Overland
Manning’s n
Distance/Range
(feet)
Pavement – smooth 0.02 50 – 200
Pavement – rough/cracked 0.05 50 – 200
Bare soil – newly graded areas 0.10 100 – 300
Range – heavily grazed 0.15 100 – 300
Turf – 1-2 in lawns/golf courses 0.20 100 – 300
Turf – 2-4 in parks/medians/pasture 0.30 200 – 500
Turf – 2-6 in natural grassland 0.40 200 – 500
Residential Landscaping 0.60 100 – 300
Few trees – natural grass undergrowth 0.50 300 – 600
Scattered trees – weed/shrub undergrowth 0.60 300 – 600 Numerous trees – dense undergrowth 0.80 300 – 600
Notes:
(1) Manning’s n for shallow flow depths is not the same as Manning’s n for channels.

4.1.4.6 Depression Storage in Pervious and Impervious Areas Depression storage is a volume that must be filled prior to the occurrence of runoff on pervious and impervious areas and is often used as a calibration parameter. Depression storage is input into the model as an average depth over the entire drainage area. Because this value is difficult to estimate, trial depression storage values were initially assumed for pervious and impervious portions of the City and then adjusted, where necessary, during hydraulic model development.

4.1.4.7 Ground Slope
Ground slopes were determined using the City’s elevation data and ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS). An average overland flow path slope is required for each hydraulic model subbasin. This value was automatically determined through intersection of subbasin areas with the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) derived from the City elevation data points and survey

11.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-10 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
data. The elevation grid was intersected with the subbasins and the slope of each grid cell within the subbasin was calculated. Using the number of cells within each subbasin, the average basin slope was calculated. To verify this procedure, subbasin slopes for selected subbasins were manually estimated using available ground contour elevations and following guidelines provided by the hydraulic model manufacturer (described in Chapter 5).

4.2 Hydraulic Criteria
The City’s topography has resulted in a storm drainage system that has many hydraulically distinct sections that operate independently of other drainage areas in the City. In general, the City maintains a storm drainage system that consists of a collection system that conveys runoff to natural drainage channels or directly to the ocean. Two areas, Linda Mar and lower Sharp Park, are too low to allow for gravity drainage and rely on two City-operated pump stations to prevent street flooding.

Capacity analysis of the storm drain system was performed in accordance with the criteria established in this section. Storm drain capacity is dependent on many factors, including roughness of the pipe, slope of pipe, and other assumptions and criteria defined below.

Conveyance facilities in the City consist mainly of storm drainage pipes with some open channels. The flow capacity of a reinforced concrete storm drainpipe was based on the hydraulic model or on Manning’s equation with the pipe flowing full.

4.2.1 Pipe Flow
Manning's equation for pipe flow was used to determine travel time for flow through pipes.

4.2.1.1 Manning Coefficient (n)
The Manning coefficient 'n' is a friction coefficient and varies with respect to pipe material, smoothness of pipe and joints, and buildup of debris or other obstructions like root intrusion. For storm drainpipes, the Manning coefficient typically ranges between 0.012 and 0.015 depending on material type. The Manning’s n value for all storm drains was assumed to be 0.015 for the hydraulic analysis. This is a conservative estimate for Manning’s n value but is reasonable considering the age of some pipes in the drainage system.

4.2.2 Channel Flow
Manning's equation for open channel flow was used to derive travel time, velocity, flow, and width relationships for channels. The modeling software calculates ditch or channel travel time using entered values of slope, width, bank side slope, and Manning’s n. The modeling software required input of a typical contributing area to determine depth of flow.

4.2.3 Surcharge Depth and Street Flooding
Storm drains are designed to surcharge under normal operation. For 10-year events, it is industry standard practice to allow storm drains to surcharge, but flooding is typically not allowed. For the 10-year event, the maximum allowable hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the system is 0.5-feet (ft) below inlet grates, or 1-foot below manhole covers, whichever is more conservative. For the 50-year event, it is common engineering practice to allow street curbs and gutters to act as storage and conveyance of storm water, similar to overland flow, in order to protect adjacent properties from flooding. When evaluating the adequacy of the exiting conveyance facilities serving existing developments under the 50-year event, City streets were allowed to flood and

11.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-11
provide flow attenuation and storage capacity, thus avoiding cost-prohibitive improvements.

Floodwaters were permitted to accumulate in streets up to 7 inches above the gutter flow line for the 50-year design storm. For streets without established gutters, assumptions were made regarding allowable flooding based on actual conditions. The maximum allowable surcharge depth criteria are summarized in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Maximum Allowable Surcharge Depth
Storm Event Criteria
10-year Maximum HGL up to 0.5 ft below inlet grates, 1 ft below manhole covers 50-year Flooding up to 7 inches in street

4.2.4 Gutter Flow
The purpose of modeling gutter flow in the model is to account for the attenuation and storage of storm water. Storage in streets/gutters was first simulated in the model by allowing ponding at drop inlets. Based on the terrain and elevations around the inlets, estimations of ponded areas were developed for each inlet. These areas were allowed to flood or pond up to a depth of seven inches unless additional ponding area was available.

Areas with flooding or ponding greater than seven inches were analyzed on an individual basis.

To avoid unnecessary pipeline improvements in these areas, gutters were then modeled as open channels to represent actual gutter flow from one drop inlet to the next. A representative cross section was used to determine flow, velocity, and depth in the gutters. This allowed storm water to travel down the gutter to the next inlet where capacity in the pipe was available, which typically occurs in the system. If modeling the system in this manner did not correct the capacity problem, then a storm drain improvement was necessary.

4.2.5 Pump Stations
Pump stations should be sized to efficiently handle the calculated runoff from a storm with a 10-year return period unless utilized in conjunction with a detention basin. Pump stations utilized in conjunction with basins should be sized to be capable of draining 100 percent of the basin’s storage capacity within five days.

4.3 Relevant Assumptions
In general, the storm drainage system data used to develop the hydraulic model were provided by the City and the references listed in Appendix A. When data was not available, supplemental information was requested from City staff, or reasonable planning assumptions were made based on the nature of the missing information. One relevant assumption included that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year water surface elevations were used as the downstream control for all facilities where FEMA flood profiles were available.

Furthermore, it was assumed that all system outfalls to the Pacific Ocean constituted are built into the model using NOAA tide data from recent king tides.

4.4 Low Impact Development
The City’s improvement standards include a requirement that low impact development (LID) principles be implemented for new developments. LID is an effective and attractive approach to land development that controls storm water pollution and attempts to prevent changes to natural storm water flow conditions (hydromodification). Many LID options have an emphasis on

11.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-12 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
cost-effective, lot-level strategies that replicate redevelopment hydrology and reduce impacts of development. In addition, implementing LID practices can help prevent polluted runoff from negatively impacting the water quality of receiving waters. Primary LID runoff control objectives include:
• Prevent hydromodification wherever possible
• Minimize disturbances created by urbanized development • Preserve and recreate natural landscape features
• Reduce effective impervious surface areas
• Increase hydrologic disconnects and provide maximize pervious areas • Increase explicit drainage flow paths
• Enhance onsite storage and reduce ecosystem impacts due to peak shock flows • Facilitate detention and infiltration opportunities
As growth and new development or redevelopment projects occur, the City should continue implementing LID projects to reduce capacity impacts to its storm drainage system. Doing so will ensure that the improvements proposed herein will satisfy capacity conditions through the planning period of this Master Plan. In addition, application of LID principles and practices can reduce the impact of built areas natural and sustainable movement of water within a watershed.

There is a significant amount of literature on LID strategies and practices. In particular, the USEPA has compiled a comprehensive compilation of design and guidance manuals, fact sheets and reports, and information resources and centers that describe all aspects of LID. Some common examples of LID principals are described below:
• Bioretention Cells: Also known as rain gardens, bioretention cells are landscaping features that absorb and provide onsite treatment of storm water runoff. Runoff is diverted into shallow depressions in the landscape, which are designed to removal pollutants through natural filtration. Rainfall and runoff from impervious surfaces are allowed to drain into the bioretention cell and pond above the mulch and soil. Excess runoff that exceeds the capacity of the cell is diverted into the City’s storm drainage collection system. These systems are generally applied to small sites and in urbanized settings where little pervious surfaces are available for natural infiltration to occur. The City should consider bioretention cells particularly for its commercial developments, where the terrain is typically flat and impervious surface areas are prevalent. Actual LID projects chosen for implementation should consider the City’s unique urban design, prevalence of natural waterways, watersheds conditions, storm water infrastructure, and appropriateness based on the City’s development goals. The following are summaries of LID projects that the City could consider for inclusion in existing and future developments. In general, all LID projects are flexible and can be engineered to meet storm water management goals and requirements.
• Cisterns/Rain Barrels: Cisterns and rain barrels collect and store rainwater collected from rooftops. These devices help reduce flooding and erosion caused by storm water runoff by retaining storm water onsite. Collected rainwater can then be utilized for garden or lawn irrigation, helping to conserve potable municipal water supply. These systems are applicable to most sites and are most often recommended to control residential storm water runoff. For areas in the City where limited storm drainage infrastructure exists, such as the Rockaway neighborhood, cisterns may be a viable option to minimize

11.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-13
reliance on overland flow or street flow for streets that have no gutters. Rain barrels also reduce the impact of high percent of directly connected impervious areas by providing storage and reducing offsite storm water flows.
• Porous Pavements: Porous pavements, such as pervious concrete, utilize alternative materials (reduced sands or fines) that allow water to drain through it, rather than creating an impenetrable surface. When used in combination with an aggregate storage bed, pervious concrete will reduce storm water runoff volume, flow rate, and pollutants.

Porous pavements can replace traditional impervious pavements for most pedestrian and vehicular applications except for high-volume/high-speed roadways. The City may consider porous pavements in new developments, or for redevelopment or retrofitting projects. Porous pavements are particularly applicable to parking lots, where it can be incorporated in large or small sections to provide additional infiltration capacity of a site with significant impervious areas.
• Vegetative Swales: Also called a biofilter or bioswale, vegetative swales refer to open channel management practices specifically used to treat and attenuate storm water runoff. Storm water runoff is allowed to flow along the channel, where it is filtered through a subsoil matrix (which can be tailored to treat runoff of various qualities), and/or underlying soils. Variations of grassed swales include grassed channels, dry swales, and wet swales. Each of these variations provides specific design features and methods of treatment, and all are improvements over the traditional drain ditch. Since the City relies significantly on natural channels to convey its storm water flows, vegetative swales may be an ideal LID feature that corresponds to existing storm water management methods in the City.

Each of LID methods described above are applicable to the City in a variety of circumstances, and they do not represent an exhaustive list of potential LID applications.

4.5 Climate Change Analysis
As part of this Master Plan, Carollo conducted an analysis of the potential impacts of climate change on the City’s storm drainage system infrastructure. This analysis generally consisted of two main elements: sea level rise (SLR) and the potential change in precipitation characteristics in the future. This section summarizes the finding of this analysis.

4.5.1 Rainfall Projections
To determine the appropriate planning criteria for the City’s storm drainage system, an ensemble of localized, downscaled climate models from the California-Nevada Climate Applications Program (CNAP) were reviewed. CNAP is run by NOAA and provides model results for future extreme precipitation events downscaled to a 1/16ogrid (approximately 3.7 square miles). The model ensemble used in this analysis is the same ensemble recommended in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (2018) and represents the best available projections at the time of this Master Plan. The projected (average) percent changes in volume of rainfall for the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm events through 2042 as estimated by the model ensemble are summarized in Table 4.5.

The ensemble model outputs show that the percent change in rainfall volume for the 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year storms in Pacifica are projected to be 26 percent, 21, percent, and 20 percent more by 2042. While there is uncertainty in these projections (as evidenced by the confidence intervals noted in Table 4.5), they represent the best available data. The percent

11.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-14 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
changes in rainfall (Table 4.5) was used to assess the impact to the drainage system performance over the 20-year planning horizon (2042).

Table 4.5 Projected Percent Increase in 24-Hour Rainfall Volume by 2042 Resource
Projected Percent Increase in 24-Hour Rainfall Volume(1) 10-year Event 50-year Event 100-year Event
Regional Integrated Science and
Assessments / CA/NV Applications
Program
26%(2) 21%(3) 20%(4)
Notes:
(1) Projections are for CNAP’s 2034 – 2064 Mid Century Scenario (2) 95% Confidence Interval = 12% – 49%
(3) 95% Confidence Interval = 1% – 55%
(4) 95% Confidence Interval = 0% – 62%

4.5.2 Seal Level Rise
Historic sea level data was obtained from the nearest (and longest recording) NOAA tide gauge in San Francisco. Over 100 years of data from this gauge show sea levels rising consistently throughout the 20th and into the 21st centuries. Sea level is projected to continue to rise along the California coast. Figure 4.4 shows the historical tide gauge data as well as three sea level rise projection scenarios considered in this analysis relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929). In the figure, historic sea level is shown as mean higher high water (MHHW), which is the average of the higher high water height of each tidal day observed over the monthly reporting period. The three sea level rise projection scenarios used in this analysis (and shown in Figure 4.4) are consistent with the scenarios evaluated in the County of San Mateo’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (2018), and the California Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (2018). These scenarios are defined as follows:
• Low risk aversion scenario: The upper value (3.3 feet) for the “likely range” of sea level rise (having a 17 percent chance of being exceeded). This scenario is to be considered for projects that have limited consequences if impacted or a higher ability to adapt to the effects of sea level rise.
• Medium-high risk aversion scenario: 6.6 feet of sea level rise having a 0.5 percent chance of being exceeded. This scenario is to be considered for projects with greater consequences if impacted and/or a lower ability to adapt to the effects of sea level rise. • Extreme risk aversion scenario: 10 feet of sea level rise accounting for extreme Arctic and Antarctic ice loss (having no associated probability at this time). The Coastal Commission identified this scenario for critical infrastructure projects with little to no adaptive capacity that would be irreversibly destroyed, significantly costly to repair, and/or or would have considerable public health, public safety, or environmental impacts should that level of sea rise occur.

For the City’s planning purposes, the medium-high risk aversion scenario should be used for stormwater infrastructure projects as they fit the definition of projects with greater consequences if impacted. The extreme risk aversion scenario – representing the most conservative scenario - is an option, however NOAA recommends this scenario be removed from consideration in planning efforts (NOAA 2022). Thus, long-term planning (beyond the planning horizon of this master plan) should prepare for up to 6.6 feet of sea level rise.

11.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-15
Figure 4.4 Projected Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the San Francisco Region

4.5.2.1 Base Flood Elevation at Pump Station Facilities The analysis considered the change in base flood elevation (BFE) due to sea level rise scenarios to follow American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) guidelines for flood protection. BFE is the flood elevation during a 100-year (or 1 percent annual chance) storm and is mapped by FEMA. In Pacifica, the only area within the 100-year floodplain is the West Linda Mar neighborhood, where the City operates two stormwater pump stations. Figure 4.5 shows that both the Linda Mar and Anza pump stations are within the orange shaded region of Zone X, which represents the 500-year flood (or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood) area. While not within the 100-year flood zone, this area is adjacent to the zone and must be evaluated to understand how sea level rise may change that in the future.

Sea level rise scenarios were added to the current BFE to determine the risk of future flooding to the Linda Mar pump station during these events. Figure 4.6 shows the chronic (high tide with sea level rise) and acute (BFE with sea level rise) flooding scenarios for the low and medium-high risk aversion scenarios. In other words, 3.3 feet of sea level rise would result in the average high tide level almost at the finished floor elevation of the Linda Mar pump station and 6.6 feet would result in high tide water levels infiltrating the pump station and causing chronic flooding issues.

Adding 6.6 feet of sea level rise to the 100-year BFE shows the pump station could be at considerable flood risk by the end of the century. However, sea level rise is unlikely to impact the pump stations within the current 20-year planning period. For this reason, this Master Plan does not include recommended capital improvement projects to address SLR, however, it is recommended that the City continue to monitor sea level rise trends in the future to better track if and when mitigation measures may be necessary at the Linda Mar and Anza Pump Stations to address sea level rise.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
MHHW (ft) Datum: NGVD 29 [1]
Extreme
Scenario for
Critical
Infrastructure:
10 ft SLR
Medium-High
Risk Aversion
Scenario: 6.6 ft
SLR
Low Risk
Aversion
Scenario: 3.3 ft
SLR
References:

1. Historical monthly MHHW obtained from NOAA Tides and Currents website for San Francisco (9414290)

2. Projections align with Coastal Commissions Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (Nov 2018) used for San Mateo County's Vulnerability Assessment.

3. Based on As-Built drawings (1957)
Linda Mar PS flood pathway [3]

11.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-16 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT Figure 4.5 FEMA Flood Map for Pacifica
Linda Mar & Anza
Pump Stations

11.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 4 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 4-17
Figure 4.6 Linda Mar Pump Station Chronic and Acute Flooding Due to Sea Level Rise Scenarios

4.5.3 Climate Change Analysis Summary and Recommendations Climate change is expected to increase the intensity of rainfall in Pacifica. Localized climate models were reviewed to assess the additional rainfall expected for the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm events. The projected average percent increases for these events is 26, 21, and 20, respectively, in the next 20 years.

Also considered was the impact of sea level rise to chronic and acute flood risk. Sea levels have already risen along the coast of Pacifica, and future sea level rise will continue to increase coastal flooding risks in Pacifica’s West Linda Mar neighborhood, where the City owns and operates two stormwater pump stations. The recommended sea level rise scenarios forecast a range of 3.3 to

6.6 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century, which could significantly increase acute flooding risk to the Linda Mar and Anza pump stations, however, sea level rise is not expected to significantly affect these pump stations during the planning horizon of this Master Plan. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor sea level rise trends in the future to better track if and when mitigation measures may be necessary at the Linda Mar and Anza Pump Stations to address seal level rise.

11.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-18 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT-This Page Intentionally Left Blank -

11.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 5-1
Chapter 5

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM FACILITIES AND

HYDRAULIC MODEL
This chapter presents an overview of the City’s storm drainage facilities. The chapter also describes the development of the City's storm drainage hydrologic and hydraulic models. These models were used for identifying existing system deficiencies and for recommending capital improvements.

5.1 System Overview
The City’s existing storm drainage system collects and conveys surface water runoff from areas throughout the City and ultimately discharges the runoff into the Pacific Ocean. While developed areas utilize storm drains to manage storm water, much of the City’s storm water flow utilizes natural drainage channels and gutters for storm water management. Pacifica’s variable topography creates valleys and distinct drainage areas that determine the nature of storm water flow through the City. Each of the City’s drainage areas is described in Section 5.2.

Figure 5.1 shows the existing storm drainage system, including storm drain diameters, pump stations, outfall locations, and open channels. Table 5.1 presents a summary by diameter of the known storm drains in the drainage system. In total, there are approximately 56 miles of storm drains. The City also includes several miles of natural drainage channels that convey storm water through the City and to the Pacific Ocean.

11.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT -This Page Intentionally Left Blank -

11.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) !P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P

SNEATH LN
OCEANA
BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR

KING DR

ROSITA RD
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL

MISSION RD
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

SKYLINE BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

PEREZ DR

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE

INVERNESS DR
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Legend
!P Outfall
Open Channels
Storm Drain by Diameter
Unknown Diameter
8" or Smaller
10" - 24"
Larger than 24"
Roadways
Study Area
Waterbody
CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 5.1 Existing Storm Drainage System
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 5-5
Table 5.1 Storm Drainage System Gravity Pipeline Summary Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Diameter (inches) Length (feet) 4 353 37 149
6 12,409 39 2,587
8 867 42 4,103
10 3,704 48 9,767
12 69,377 51 945
15 55,343 54 4,738
18 41,313 57 532
21 23,785 60 1,790
24 22,625 72 3,198
27 5,035 78 1,390
30 11,518 84 587
33 1,790 90 1,366
36 14,744
Total (feet) 294,014
Total (miles) 55.7

5.2 Existing System Drainage Areas
The City is currently divided into 12 hydraulically distinct subbasins, shown in Figure 5.2.

Table 5.2 summarizes the total area for each subbasin and the level of development in each.

Each subbasin has a system of conveyance facilities to collect and dispose runoff. Depending on the subbasin, storm water runoff is conveyed to the Pacific Ocean through either storm water pipelines, or local drainage channels (e.g., San Pedro Creek, Calera Creek, etc.). The City does not currently utilize any detention or retention basins with its storm drainage system.

For the sake of clarity, the existing subbasins were grouped into seven larger drainage areas based on their watersheds. A brief description of each drainage area and the existing drainage facilities in each is provided below.

11.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT -This Page Intentionally Left Blank -

11.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) East Edgemar -
Pacific Manor
East and West
Fairmont
East and West
Sharp Park
Fairway Park
Headlands
Monterey Road
Pedro Point
Rockaway
Vallemar
West Edgemar -
Pacific Manor
Linda Mar and
Park Pacifica
West
Linda Mar
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 11, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
Existing System Subbasins
West Linda Mar
East Edgemar - Pacific Manor
East and West Fairmont
East and West Sharp Park
Fairway Park
Headlands
Linda Mar and Park Pacifica
Monterey Road
Pedro Point
Rockaway
Vallemar
West Edgemar - Pacific Manor
Roadways
Study Area
Waterbody
Pacifica City Boundary
CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 5.2 Existing System Subbasins
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 5-9
Table 5.2 Subbasin Summary
Area (acres)
North Pacifica
East and West Fairmont 498
Monterey Road 323
West Edgemar-Pacific Manor 30
East Edgemar-Pacific Manor 601
East and West Sharp Park 655
Fairway Park 802
Vallemar 1,142
Rockaway 318
South Pacifica
Headlands 240
West Linda Mar 90
Linda Mar and Park Pacifica 4,725
Pedro Point 146

5.2.1 North Pacifica
The North Pacifica drainage area encompasses the northern part of the City, including a portion of Daly City. Subbasins within the North Pacifica drainage area include East and West Fairmont, Monterey Road, West Edgemar-Pacific Manor, and East Edgemar-Pacifica Manor. Some of these subbasins are hydraulically connected through storm drainage pipeline infrastructure, but each has hydrologic characteristics that make them distinct from one another.

The storm water in this drainage area is managed by underground pipelines and several small open channels, two of which are primary drainage channels. One of these open channels is “Big Inch Creek” that flows through the neighborhood between Monterey Road and Nelson Avenue, and collects storm water from the Monterey Road subbasin.

The East Edgemar-Pacific Manor subbasin is served by the second prominent open channel in the North Pacifica drainage area, which stems from the valley area of the Milagra Ridge, part of the coastal mountain range that dissects the City. This channel flows northwesterly between Milagra Drive and Arroyo Drive, and utilizes both pipe flow and a natural drainage channel to convey runoff. At the point where the residential development borders the open space area in the valley, the channel flow is split between continued open channel and a 48-inch pipeline. Flow that is not diverted from the natural drainage channel serves as the flow required to support the riparian habit. Collected storm water from the surrounding residential area is conveyed to the natural drainage channel, after which it is ultimately combined with the pipe flow and sent through a 90-inch pipeline to an ocean outfall.

The North Pacifica drainage area includes a combination of developed areas with dense pipeline infrastructure, and open space areas that rely more prominently on gutter and overland flow. All storm flows in this area are diverted to pipelines that flow underneath the highway and to various ocean outfalls. Storm drain pipelines range in size from 4-inches to 90-inches in diameter. Figure 5.2 illustrates the four subbasins that comprise the North Pacifica drainage area.

11.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-10 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

5.2.2 East and West Sharp Park
The East and West Sharp Park drainage area consists primarily of developed land with residential and commercial land uses, and a small portion of pervious hillside terrain. As such, much of the storm water conveyance system in this area is gutter flow over impervious surfaces and into inlets/catch basins, where it is combined into a pipeline conveyance system. Storm drainage flow through this area is westerly towards the ocean. Though small open channels exist, no open channel serves as a primary conveyance feature for this area.

The northern half of the Sharp Park Golf Course is included in this drainage area and serves as the final outfall location for a large portion of the storm water runoff in East and West Sharp Park. Runoff is directed to a 48-inch outfall pipeline to Laguna Salada, a primary water feature at the golf course and substantial wetland area. However, the typically high-water surface elevation of Laguna Salada, and silt deposition and plant growth around the outfall prevent adequate drainage of the southern portion of the drainage area. Inadequate drainage often leads to flooding of the residential and commercial development in the Clarendon Road and southernmost portion of Palmetto Avenue. When flooding events occur, the City uses a temporary pump near the Pacific Ocean outfall at the western end of Clarendon Road to remove standing water from the neighborhood. The Sharp Park Golf Course and the 48-inch outfall pipeline are currently managed by the City of San Francisco; any proposed improvements or storm water management efforts in this area may require coordination with the golf course management agency.

This drainage area also includes many independent ocean outfalls that serve separate, smaller neighborhood subbasins. A primary feature of the storm drainage collection system in this area is the complex drainage infrastructure that exists under Highway 1, which is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Though it is all interconnected, the various branches of the conveyance system divert storm flows to different ocean outfalls based on high and low elevation points in the area. Pipelines in this drainage area range in diameter from 6- inches to 60-inches.

5.2.3 Fairway Park
The Fairway Park drainage area is primarily comprised of pervious hillside terrain and manicured golf course turf. The area includes the communities of Fairway Park as well as a small portion of residential development on the ridgeline following Sharp Park Road, near Skyline Community College. Some of the storm water flows from this small ridgeline development are collected into the conveyance pipeline that underlies Sharp Park Road, while the remaining runoff flows into the Sharp Park valley and into several natural open channels.

Fairway Park is a small, hydraulically distinct neighborhood in Pacifica that is enveloped in the Sharp Park valley and adjacent to the Sharp Park golf course. An open channel runs north of the development in a westerly direction, which serves as primary runoff collection conduit for the open space areas upstream of the residential neighborhood. Storm waterflow from the developed section of this drainage area is collected in pipelines ranging in diameter from 12 to 36-inches, where it is sent to a 90-inch pipeline and to an ocean outfall. Some of the runoff from this area contributes to the inflow into Laguna Salada (described in Section 5.2.2).

11.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 5-11

5.2.4 Vallemar
Vallemar is a hydraulically isolated community of Pacifica that is located along the floor of the Calera Valley. The Vallemar drainage area is comprised of a large portion of pervious hillside terrain, which contributes to the creation of several tributaries that feed Calera Creek. Calera Creek flows westerly through the residential development within this area, towards the ocean.

There is minimal pipeline infrastructure for storm drainage in this area; storm drainage is facilitated primarily by gutter flow in the streets. A few 12-inch pipelines collect flow from the residential development and divert it into Calera Creek, which conveys all the drainage area’s storm water flow to the ocean. Two 42-inch culverts exist in the upstream portion of Calera Creek to facilitate flow through the developed portion of the Vallemar neighborhood. Most of the land west of Highway 1 in this drainage area is open space that drains into Calera Creek, and ultimately to the ocean.

5.2.5 Rockaway
Rockaway is one of the oldest residential developments in Pacifica, and lies along the floor of the Rockaway Valley (elevations ranging from 270 feet above mean sea level [MSL] to sea level). The Rockaway drainage area is created by the ridgelines of Fassler Ridge and Cattle Hill, and is comprised of a high proportion of pervious hillside terrain compared to developed land. All of the storm water runoff through this area is diverted into a densely overgrown natural drainage channel that flows south of and alongside the primary thoroughfare (Rockaway Beach Avenue), in a westerly direction towards the ocean.

The community of Rockaway does not have a manmade gutter system to convey runoff. Rather, runoff typically utilizes overland flow to move from the hillside areas, through properties via onsite drainage measures, and into the drainage channel. The narrow design of the community facilitates quick recovery of impervious surface flow into the open channel. Cross sections of the drainage channel are extremely variable, and depend highly on the development design of the area (i.e. flow through residential backyard areas, under roadways, through commercial development, etc.). Collection system pipes in this area range in diameter from 8 to 30 inches, although the open channel does pass through a 60-inch pipeline under Highway 1.

5.2.6 South Pacifica
The South Pacifica drainage area encompasses the largest drainage area in the City, and is comprised of four smaller subbasins including the Headlands, West Linda Mar, Linda Mar and Park Pacifica, and Pedro Point. Included in this area is a large amount of residential development with many isolated branches of pipeline, most of which ultimately flow into San Pedro Creek.

The topography of the area allows for utilization of gutter flow, which hydrologically connects the four subbasins in this drainage area during heavy storm events. The South Pacifica drainage basin is formed by a long stretch of the coastal mountain range, including Sweeney Ridge and Montara Mountain.

A large network of storm drainage pipelines run through the developed portion of this area, and range in diameter from 10- to 84-inches. All of the storm water flow collected by this infrastructure is diverted to San Pedro Creek (described in Section 5.2.6.1). The topography of the South Pacifica drainage area includes the variable hillside terrain near the coastal mountain range, and flat residential and commercial development towards the coastline. As a result, storm

11.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-12 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
drainage issues differ based on drainage area subbasin, and subsequently have varying effects on storm water flows added to San Pedro Creek.

5.2.6.1 San Pedro Creek
San Pedro Creek is a perennial natural drainage channel that drains an 8-square mile watershed area in the South Pacifica drainage area and provides riparian areas and winter flows that support migrating steelhead trout. The creek is formed by the combination of five main tributaries, including the north, middle, and south forks. The north fork was entirely converted to a culvert system in the 1970s. While the culverted north fork helps manage storm water flows into the creek, it also prevents natural infiltration and can subsequently cause downstream flows to reach unsustainable levels throughout the wet season. High flows through San Pedro Creek have historically caused significant erosion of creek habitat and flooding events that threaten residential and commercial development. In addition, the creek is intermittently affected by poor water quality. In particular, fecal and total coliform bacteria have been observed in a variety of sampling studies and contributes to advisory warnings at Pacifica State Beach.

5.3 Storm Drain Retention/Detention Basins
The City does not currently operate or maintain any storm drainage retention or detention basins.

5.4 Storm Drain Pump Stations
There are currently two pump stations in the storm drainage system. Both pumps stations are located in the South Pacifica Drainage Area (specifically in the West Linda Mar neighborhood), and pump storm water from low-lying areas near the coastline. The approximate capacities of the pump stations were estimated for use in the hydraulic model based on information provided by City staff.

The smaller of the two pump stations (Linda Mar) is located at the western edge of Linda Mar Blvd, west of Highway 1 and next to the beach. Linda Mar pump station contains three pumps:
two with 50 horsepower (hp) motors and an estimated capacity of 13,500 gallons per minute (gpm), and one with a 40 HP motor and an estimated capacity of 11,200 gpm. According to the City, the approximate volume of the wet well for the Linda Mar pump station is 43,000 gallons.

This pump station receives flow from the southern half of the West Linda Mar neighborhood and some surface runoff from the Linda Mar neighborhood.

The larger of the City’s pump stations (Anza) is located due west of Anza Drive, west of Highway 1 and next to the beach. This pump station also serves as a public restroom. Anza pump station contains three pumps: two with approximate maximum capacities of 31,000 gpm, and one with a 600 hp motor and an estimated capacity 140,000 gpm. According to the City, the approximate volume of the wet well for the Anza pump station is 62,000 gallons. This pump station receives storm water from the northern half of the West Linda Mar neighborhood and runoff from the Fassler Ridge hillside areas.

5.5 Existing Discharge Locations
The City currently discharges storm runoff into the Pacific Ocean at numerous locations throughout the City. Conveyance systems to the outfalls are comprised of a combination of pipelines and open channels. Several large open space areas on the coastline drain directly to the ocean and do not require conveyance infrastructure.

11.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 5-13

5.6 Natural Springs
The City’s service includes several locations where groundwater daylights through natural springs, which can runoff through City curbs and gutters. Some of these locations have been addressed by specific storm drain infrastructure to address nuisance flow associated from the natural springs. The natural spring on Rockaway Beach Avenue, however, does not currently have infrastructure to route this flow, and therefore there is a small amount of water running on the street throughout the year. The following natural spring areas have been documented by City staff to date:
• Barton Place
• Pacific
• San Pablo Terrace (Vallejo Terrace)
• Rainier Ave
• Victoria Way
• Granada
• Barcelona
• Intersection of Park Pacifica and Judson Place
• Oddstad Blvd at Everglades
• San Pedro Ave and Danmann Ave
• Kent Road and Danmann Ave
• Rockaway Beach Ave

5.7 Modeling Software
The storm drainage system was evaluated using InfoSWMM modeling software. The previous model was created with H2OMAP SWMM; this model was used as a starting point for the model software update. InfoSWMM supports United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Storm Water Management Model Climate Adjustment Tool (SWMM-CAT) to simulate rainfall runoff for existing and future rainfall events. InfoSWMM is built on Esri’s ArcGIS which enabled the use of any relevant stormwater GIS assets the City possessed. Once runoff quantity is simulated, and stormwater loads at receiving nodes are, the routing portion of InfoSWMM transports the flow through a conveyance system of pipes, channels, storage/treatment devices, pumps, and hydraulic regulators such as weirs and orifices. This can be done using either steady flow routing, kinematic wave routing, or dynamic wave routing.

5.8 Hydrologic Model
Hydrologic analysis of the City’s storm drainage system was performed using the SWMM Runoff Block, which is included in the InfoSWMM modeling software. The SWMM Runoff Block was designed to simulate the surface water runoff response of a drainage basin to precipitation by representing the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and hydraulic components.

The Runoff Block was used to simulate the quantity of storm water runoff that flows overland in each subbasin during a particular storm event.

In the SWMM Runoff Block, each model component represents a specific aspect of the rainfallrunoff processes occurring in a portion of the watershed. A component may represent the runoff occurring in a subbasin, the routing of flows down a drainage channel, or the routing of flows through a detention basin. The model operates by reading an input data file that contains the

11.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-14 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
parameters describing each component of the drainage basin, along with information describing how the various components work together to form the drainage basin. The result of the modeling process was a tabulation of flow hydrographs at desired locations within the study area.

Output data was generated by the model based on the input parameters detailed below.

Parameters describing the various components of the model are based on land use, soils, vegetation, drainage channels, and topography. For example, the land use in a subbasin will determine the percent of that subbasin that is impervious and the average condition of the drainage channels. These values, along with others describing additional components of the subbasin, are placed in a computer input data file that is read by the SWMM Runoff computer model and used as a basis for computation of the rainfall-runoff processes in the subbasin.

5.8.1 Design Hydrograph
Design hydrographs were determined using the SWMM Runoff Module of InfoSWMM, which is incorporated in the Pacifica storm water model. The 10-year and 50-year, 24-hour storms were used in the analysis. The hyetographs, which are graphical representations of the distribution of rainfall over time, were balanced so that 5, 10, 15, etc. minute intensities are nested symmetrically within the 24-hour storm. They were constructed (by the SWMM Runoff Module) from DDF data provided in Chapter 3.

5.8.2 SWMM Hydrologic Unit (Subcatchment)
Subcatchments are hydrologic units of land whose topography and drainage system elements direct surface runoff to a single discharge point. The City was divided up into nearly 1,000 individual subcatchments and the appropriate outlet point was defined. The area and boundary of each subcatchment was determined with the use of development plans, available topographic data, and field observations to determine the drainage path. Table 5.3 summarizes the number of subcatchments by subbasin and the minimum, maximum, and average subcatchment percent impervious within each subbasin.

Table 5.3 Subcatchment Summary
Drainage Area/ Subbasin
Total
Area
(acres)
No. of
Subcatchments
Imperviousness (%) (DCIA)
Min Max Avg
North Pacifica
East and West Fairmont 498 223 0.0 100.0 41.4
Monterey Road 323 115 0.7 100.0 29.7
West Edgemar-Pacific Manor 30 2 37.0 98.2 57.6
East Edgemar-Pacific Manor 601 25 1.1 77.7 24.3
East and West Sharp Park 655 100 0.0 97.1 25.5
Fairway Park 802 45 0.0 78.3 6.5
Vallemar 1,142 34 0.0 58.1 5.3
Rockaway 318 28 0.0 64.6 9.5

11.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 5 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 5-15
Drainage Area/ Subbasin
Total
Area
(acres)
No. of
Subcatchments
Imperviousness (%) (DCIA)
Min Max Avg
South Pacifica
Headlands 240 27 0.0 96.4 28.3
West Linda Mar 90 35 20.1 99.0 61.1
Linda Mar and Park Pacifica 4,725 396 0.0 100.0 8.2
Pedro Point 146 28 0.0 71.4 17.4

5.8.3 Width of SWMM Hydrologic Unit (Subcatchment)
The width of each SWMM Hydrologic unit, or SWMM subbasin was used by the model to estimate the flow from the furthest point in the drainage area to the outlet. Determining this physical width of overland flow is a difficult process as it depends on storage and shape effects of the subbasin. Therefore, it is commonly used as a calibration parameter to account for the impact of the drainage system within each subbasin on flow travel time. However, due to inadequate data for calibrating the runoff from each subbasin, subbasin width was not considered as a calibration parameter in this analysis. Instead, the width was estimated first by determining the maximum length of overland flow and dividing the area by this length. This method is recommended in the SWMM User’s Manual.

5.9 Hydraulic Model
The InfoSWMM hydraulic model was used to simulate the hydraulic conditions in the City’s storm drainage system. The computer hydraulic model was used to analyze the storm drainage system, to identify deficiencies, and to propose system improvements.

5.9.1 Flow Routing
Flow routing within a conduit link in InfoSWMM is governed by the conservation of mass and momentum equations for gradually varied unsteady flow (i.e., the St. Venant equations). The InfoSWMM user has a choice on the level of sophistication used to solve these equations:
• Steady Flow
• Kinematic Wave Routing
• Dynamic Wave Routing
The City’s hydraulic model used Dynamic wave routing to analyze the storm drainage system.

Dynamic wave routing solves the complete Saint-Venant flow equations and therefore produces the most accurate results. These equations consist of the continuity and momentum equations for conduits and a flow continuity equation at nodes.

Dynamic wave routing can account for channel storage, backwater, entrance/exit losses, flow reversal, and pressurized flow. Because it couples the solution for both water levels at nodes and flow in conduits it can be applied to any general network layout, even those containing multiple downstream diversions and loops. It is the method of choice for systems subjected to significant backwater effects due to downstream flow restrictions or flow regulation via weirs and orifices.

This generality comes at a price of having to use much smaller time steps, approximately a minute or less.

11.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-16 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

5.10 Initial Model Verification and Model Calibration
After the model was updated, the reasonableness of the model results and the hydraulic grade line profiles were evaluated during the initial model runs. This was accomplished by comparing areas of flooding predicted by the model with observations offered by the City. Areas around the City that experience flooding were confirmed by the model results.

In addition, the model was calibrated against the flow monitoring data collected during the temporary flow monitoring program (see Chapter 3). The model calibration confirmed that the hydraulic/hydrologic model predicted runoff rates matched up well with the field measured data, and was suitable for use in evaluating the capacity of the system. Figure 5.3 is an example calibration sheet for flowmeter Site 2. The calibrations sheets for the other sites are provided in Appendix E.

Following the verification process, the model was used for the existing and future storm drainage system analysis.

Figure 5.3 Example Calibration Sheet (Site 2)

11.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 6 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 6-1
Chapter 6

CAPACITY EVALUATION AND PROPOSED

IMPROVEMENTS
This chapter presents the results of the capacity evaluation of the storm drainage system and the proposed projects to correct capacity deficiencies and serve future users.

6.1 Capacity Evaluation
Evaluation of the capacity of the City’s storm drainage system involved identifying areas in the system where the maximum HGL or street flooding exceeded the maximum criteria as defined in Chapter 3. Storm drains that lacked sufficient capacity to convey runoff generated from the design storm could produce backwater effects in the drainage system and potentially cause flooding. This chapter discusses the possible locations of existing and future flooding caused by these deficiencies. When an increase to capacity is required, it was assumed, unless otherwise noted, that storm drains would be replaced with a larger diameter pipeline.

6.1.1 Existing System
When evaluating the adequacy of the storm drainage facilities serving existing developments under the 50-year design storm, City streets were allowed to flood and provide additional storage capacity, if available, thus reducing the number of storm drain improvements. When storm drains are in City streets, the goal was to contain storm flows within the drainage pipelines, with no ponding in City streets during the 10-year design storm. The storm drainage criteria allowed City streets to flood up to seven inches above the gutter flow line in the 50-year design storm. If flooding exceeded seven inches and additional gutter capacity was not available, then an improvement was necessary to correct the problem. Drainage pipes within a street that cannot be supplemented by overland flow should be designed to have sufficient capacity to convey the 50-year design storm while maintaining a hydraulic grade line below the manhole rim elevations.

In general, the existing storm drainage system has sufficient capacity to convey runoff generated during the selected design storms. In some locations, the existing storm drains lack sufficient capacity to convey the 10-year/50-year design runoff while meeting the allowable flow depth criteria identified in Chapter 3. Figure 6.1 shows the locations of the modeled system deficiencies under existing design storm conditions.

6.1.2 Future System
The future system evaluation consisted of adding the known future developments identified by the City’s planning department into the hydrologic/hydraulic model, as well as running the model under the more intense 10-year and 50-year design storm volumes identified as part of the climate change analysis (see Chapter 3 for more detailed information regarding the future design storm volumes with climate change).

11.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
In general, the future developments identified in Chapter 2 will have a relatively minor impact on storm water drainage facilities, and no additional modeled system deficiencies were identified as part of the future system analysis (including the increased precipitation rates associated with climate change)

6.1.3 Stakeholder Outreach
The City solicited feedback from its customers to identify potential drainage issues that may not necessarily be identified by the hydraulic/hydrologic model. The City solicited feedback from its customers through a dedicated page on the City’s website1 , as well as the City’s newsletter and
through the Nextdoor software application. From this outreach program, the City was able to identify several areas of concern that were accounted for in the development of the recommended improvement projects included in this Master Plan. The majority of the areas of concern identified by the City’s customers were centered around the following main areas:
• Monterey Road/Big Inch Creek between Hickey Boulevard and Highway 101 • Rockaway Beach Avenue
• Lower Linda Mar (Montezuma Drive and De Solo Drive)
These areas of concern were mapped to aid in the development of project recommendations.

6.2 Storm Drainage System Improvements
Figure 6.2 illustrates the proposed storm drainage system improvements recommended as part of this Master Plan. The projects primarily address model simulated flooding under the existing 10-year and 50-year design storm events, as well as projects to address the areas of concern noted by the City’s residents as described in Section 6.1.3. Additionally, this Master Plan recommends the implementation of a storm drain maintenance and inspection program as a part of a long-term rehabilitation/replacement program. This maintenance program is described in detail in Chapter 7 of this Master Plan.

Table 6.1 summarizes details of each improvement, including the improvement figure number corresponding to Figure 6.2. For future storm drains, the proposed diameter is shown along with the length of pipe. Figure 6.2 and Table 6.1 should be used together to locate the proposed improvement on the map and to gain details of the improvement (length, diameter, street location, etc.).
1 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/pw/engr/storm_drainage_master_plan/default.asp

11.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) !P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P

SNEATH LN
OCEANA
BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR

KING DR

ROSITA RD
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL

MISSION RD
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

SKYLINE BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

PEREZ DR

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE

INVERNESS DR
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 29, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
!P Outfall
Deficiencies
Study Area
Storm Drain by Diameter
Unknown Diameter
8" or Smaller
10" - 24"
Larger than 24"
Open Channels
Roadways
Waterways
Waterbody
CHAPTER 6 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 6.1 Existing System Deficiencies
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) ")=
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
LM-1
EE-1
RW-1
WLM-1
EE-2
V-1
MR-1C
EE-4
EE-3
SP-1B
WLM-2
MR-1A

SNEATH LN
OCEANA
BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR

KING DR

ROSITA RD
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL

MISSION RD
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

SKYLINE BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

PEREZ DR

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE

INVERNESS DR
SP-1A
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 29, 2022 pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo_200000\Documents\CA\Pacifica\200647-000000\03 Reports and Studies\09 GIS\Pacifica_200647.Zip Legend
!P Outfall
")= Lift Station Project
Pipeline Project
Study Area
Storm Drain by Diameter
Unknown Diameter
8" or Smaller
10" - 24"
Larger than 24"
Open Channels
Waterways
Roadways
CHAPTER 6 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 6.2 Proposed Improvements
280
1 35
MR-1B
MR-2
SP-1C
SP-2

11.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 6 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | Ͳ‐ͳ
Table Ͳ.ͭ Proposed Improvements
Project Basin Proposed Sized Proposed Length (feet)
WLM‐ͭ West Linda Mar ͯͲ‐inch ͭ,Ͳʹͬ
WLM‐ͮ West Linda Mar ͯͬ‐inch ͭ,ͬͱͬ
MR‐ͭA Monterey Road ͯͬ‐inch ͮ,ͬͮͬ
MR‐ͭB Monterey Road ͮͰ‐inch Ͱͬ
MR‐ͭC Monterey Road ͭʹ‐inch ͳͱͬ
MR‐ͮ Monterey Road ͭͱ‐inch ͵ʹͬ
SP‐ͭA Sharp Park ͱͱ,ͬͬͬ gpm ‐‐
SP‐ͭB Sharp Park ͯͬ‐inch ͵ͭͬ
SP‐ͭC Sharp Park ‐‐ ‐‐
SP‐ͮ Sharp Park ͮͭ‐inch ͳͬ
EE‐ͭ East Edgemar ͮͰ‐inch ͯͬͬ
EE‐ͮ East Edgemar ͭʹ‐inch Ͳ͵ͬ
EE‐ͯ East Edgemar ͭͱ‐inch ʹͲͬ
EE‐Ͱ East Edgemar ͭͱ‐inch ʹʹͬ
RW‐ͭ Rockaway Beach Avenue ͭͱ‐inch ͯͲͬ
LM‐ͭ Linda Mar (Madeira Drive) ͯͬ‐inch ͭ͵ͬ
V‐ͭ Vallemar (Lauren Avenue) ͭͱ‐inch ͳͬͬ

6.2.1 West Linda Mar Improvements
City staff have historically noted flooding in the vicinity of Montezuma Drive and De Solo Drive.

The hydraulic/hydrologic model also predicted flooding would occur in this location during the ͭͬ‐year and ͱͬ‐year design storm events. The recommended improvement at this location is consistent with the recommended project included in the ͮͬͭͮ Storm Drainage System Master Plan, and consists of the following:
 WLM‐ͭ: This project includes the installation of a new ͯͲ‐inch pipeline from ͳͭͭ Linda Mar Blvd, to the corner of Linda Mar Blvd and Highway ͭ. The ͯͲ‐inch pipeline would continue along Highway ͭ to the existing manhole at the northern corner of the Chevron gas station.
 WLM‐ͮ: This project includes the installation of a new ͯͬ‐inch pipeline from ͳͭͭ Linda Mar Blvd, to the inlet located due west of Marvilla Place on Linda Mar Blvd.

6.2.2 Monterey Road Improvements
As part of the stakeholder outreach (Section Ͳ.ͭ.ͯ), numerous drainage issues were reported in the vicinity of Monterey Road from Hickey Boulevard down to Highway ͭ. The drainage issues reported included severe flooding on Monterey Road and Nelson Avenue during large storm events, such as the October ͮͬͮͭ rainfall event, and issues within Big Inch Creek, including flooding and erosion concerns, behind the homes on Nelson Avenue and Monterey Road. The proposed improvements in the Monterey Road area include:
 MR‐ͭA/MR‐ͭB/MR‐ͭC: This project includes the construction of a new ͭʹ‐inch diameter and ͯͬ‐inch diameter storm drain pipeline in Monterey Road. The ͭʹ‐inch diameter storm drain would intercept runoff that would normally flow into Big Inch Creek, as well as runoff that currently can flow down Monterey Road and flood the street, and would extend from roughly ͳͱͬ‐feet southeast of Hickey Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard. The

11.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
proposed 30-inch diameter storm drain would extend from Hickey Boulevard west to the existing 30-inch storm drain just east of Waterford Street. • MR-2: It is also recommended that a new storm drain pipeline be constructed in Nelson Avenue from Perry Avenue to the existing 42-inch diameter storm drain just west of Johnson Avenue.

An alternative concept for projects MR-1A and 1B was also developed. The alternative alignment would construct a new 30-inch diameter buried storm drain in Big Inch Creek rather than the proposed storm drain on Monterey Road. A smaller creek would remain above the new storm drain pipeline. The alternative alignment is shown on Figure 6.3. This Master Plan assumes that the pipeline in Monterey Road would be constructed, however, the City could reconsider that alternative alignment in Big Inch Creek during the preliminary design phase of the project, as appropriate.

11.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# # #
#
#
# # # #
# # ### # # # # #
# #
# # # # #
# # #
#
#
# # # # # # # # #
# # # #
# # # #
#
# #
#
# # #
#
#
# # # #
## # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # # #
#
# #
#
#
#
#
## # # # #
# # # # # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # # # #
#
#
#
# # # #
#
#
# # # #
#
#
# # # # #
# #
#
# # # #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
# # # # #
# # # # #
# # # #
#
#
#
#
# # # # # #
# # #
# #
#
#
# #
# # # # # # #
#
# # # #
# # # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
MR-1B, 24"

SHORT ST

CHANNING WAY

EDNA LN

CATALINA AVE

CHESTER PL

HIBERT CT

WINWOOD AVE

BEVERLY PL

BEAUMONT BLVD

NORFOLK DR

VISTA MAR AVE

CUTTY CT

BEACHVIEW AVE

MANOR DR

BALLY WAY

NELSON AVE

PERRY AVE
H
C
I
K
E
Y
B
LVD

FREMONT AVE

CLIFTON RD

DEL MAR AVE

FARALLON AVE

JOHNSON AVE

BANCROFT WAY

MONTEREY RD

UNNAMED
MR-1C, 18''
MR-2, 15''
MR-1A, 30''
21''
12''
12''
12''
12'' 12''
12''
12''
12''
12''
6''
12''
12''
18''
12''
12''
15''
30''
15''
12''
36''
18''
12''
12''
12''
18''
12''
21''
4''
12''
15''
42''
15''
12''
4''
24''
12''
30''
42''
4''
12''
27''
18''
15''
12''
48''
12''
21''
18''
6''
24''
O
0 145 290
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of Pacifica, CA.

San Mataeo County.

Figure 6.3 Monterey Road Improvement Alternatives
CHAPTER 6 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Legend
!P Proposed Outfall
")= Proposed Lift Station
Proposed Project
Alternative Alignment
")= Pump Station
Open Channel
# # Storm Drain
Water Bodies
City Limits
¬«1
MR-1A/B Alternative Alignment in Big Inch Creek

11.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-10 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT -This Page Intentionally Left Blank-

11.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 6 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 6-11

6.2.3 Sharp Park Improvements
This drainage area includes one of the City’s most significant and recurring flooding areas that regularly threatens businesses and residences. Flooding issues are caused by a combination of low-lying invert elevations and backwater effects/blockages from the existing outfall to Laguna Salada. The recommended improvements to this area will help the City to more effectively manage the interaction between the water level in Laguna Salada and the City’s storm drainage infrastructure.

The water level in Laguna Salada is maintained by the presence of a levee, which separates the Shark Park Golf Course from the Pacific Ocean. Outflow from Laguna Salada is controlled via a pump station that is privately operated by the Sharp Park Golf Course. According to the City, environmental considerations periodically arise that prevent the Golf Course from pumping water from the lake, sometimes during storm events. When these situations occur, the low elevation of the ground surface and pipeline inverts in comparison to the lake surface elevation causes localized flooding in depressed areas of this neighborhood. In addition, silt deposits and aquatic growth in or around the 48-inch outfall to Laguna Salada inhibit drainage. The City has historically used temporary pumping during wet weather events to minimize flooding, however, this practice is labor intensive and inefficient. This Master Plan recommends the following:
• Sharp Park Pump Station, Force Main, and Outfall (SP-1A, SP-1B, SP-1C): It is recommended that a new permanent storm drainage system pump station be constructed near the intersection of Clarendon Road and Lakeside Avenue. A new 30-inch force main and outfall is also recommended as shown on Figure 6.2. • SP-2: The hydraulic model indicated that a short, 70-foot reach of existing storm drain line at the intersection of Brighton Road and Palmetto Avenue is undersized and could contribute to localized flooding under large storm events. It is recommended that a new 21-inch diameter storm drain be constructed, as shown on Figure 6.2.

6.2.4 Edgemar Improvements
The hydraulic model indicated that the existing storm drain line on Edgemar Avenue from Avalon Drive to Arroyo Drive is undersized, and could contribute to localized flooding under the 10-year and 50-year design storm events. In addition, the tributary area to this pipeline does not currently have storm drain infrastructure, which has contributed to street flooding in the area in the past. The following projects are recommended for this area, as shown on Figure 6.2:
• EE-1: This project would replace the existing storm drain pipeline on Edgemar Avenue from Avalon Drive to Arroyo Drive with a new 24-inch diameter storm drain pipeline. • EE-2 through EE-4: It is recommended that a new system of 15-inch and 18-inch diameter storm drain pipelines be constructed on Edgemar Avenue (EE-2 from Avalon Drive to Manor Drive), Avalon Drive (EE-3 from Edgemar Avenue to Perry Avenue), and Manor Drive (EE-4 from Edgemar Avenue to Perry Avenue) to more efficiently convey runoff from the East Edgemar Basins to the proposed EE-1 project, thereby reducing the potential for future flooding in this area.

11.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-12 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

6.2.5 Rockaway Beach Avenue
As previously noted, there is a natural spring on Rockaway Beach Avenue which has led to a small amount of nuisance water that flows on the street throughout the year. The following is recommended:
• RW-1: This project includes the construction of a short reach (360-feet) of storm drain line to convey runoff from the natural spring to an adjacent creek.

The City is planning to replace the sanitary sewer in Rockaway Beach Avenue in the next five years, and may decide to construct RW-1 at the same time.

6.2.6 Madeira Drive Improvements
The hydraulic/hydrologic model indicated that there is a potential for street flooding on Madeira Drive east of Capistrano Drive under larger (50-year+) storm events. The following is recommended:
• LM-1: This project includes the construction of roughly 190-feet of new 30-inch storm drain from Madeira Drive to San Pedro Creek.

6.2.7 Lauren Avenue Improvements
City staff noted that there is currently no storm drain infrastructure on Lauren Avenue south of Reina Del Mar Avenue. The following project is recommended:
• V-1: This project is meant to more effectively convey runoff generated on Lauren Avenue and includes the construction of approximately 700-feet of new 15-inch diameter storm drain pipeline.

6.2.8 Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement Program It is recommended that the City develop a long-term condition assessment, inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation/replacement program. This proposed program is described in detail in Chapter 7 of this Master Plan.

11.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 7 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 7-1
Chapter 7

CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND

REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

7.1 Existing Conditions
The existing condition of the City’s storm drainage system varies significantly across the City because of the historic, mottled construction of its communities, starting in the early 1900s. As a result, the City’s storm drainage infrastructure differs in capacity, configuration, and material, while some neighborhoods have no storm drainage infrastructure at all.

Pacifica’s topography and limited development into its mountainous areas have been limiting factors on expansion of the storm drainage system. In fact, these limitations on expansion have probably facilitated the longevity of older infrastructure in conveying storm water flows.

However, as the storm water pipelines continue to age, it will be important for the City to have assessed the current state of its storm drainage system and establish a plan for improvements.

With a condition assessment program, in conjunction with an R/R program (described in Section 7.4), the City will be able to make pre-emptive decisions regarding improvements to its storm drainage infrastructure.

Prioritization is an important aspect of any condition assessment program. Based on the approximate construction dates of the City’s storm drainage infrastructure, system inspection and maintenance can be prioritized and scheduled over the course of the recommended planning period (described in Section 7.3.3).

7.2 Existing Maintenance
This section provides a summary of the City’s existing cleaning, inspection, and water quality practices.

7.2.1 Cleaning
City cleaning activities include street sweeping, cleaning catch basins, and removing materials from drainage channels. The City clears blockages of debris and trash when necessary, and therefore executes cleaning of the storm drainage system on an as needed basis.

One location that has regular blockage is the existing 48-inch outfall to Laguna Salada, just north of the Sharp Park Golf Course, which has significant sedimentation and plant growth that occurs at its outfall. The outfall to this marshy area is currently owned and maintained by the City of San Francisco. Therefore, the City does not have jurisdiction over cleaning of this pipeline, even though sediment and subsequent clogging of this outfall likely cause most of the flooding problems in this neighborhood. A specific improvement is recommended for this site, and is described in Chapter 6.

11.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

7.2.2 Inspection
The City conducts storm drain inspections on an as-needed basis (i.e. when a lockage or significant, abnormal flooding event occurs). Maintenance activities related to the storm drainage system, therefore, are almost exclusively corrective in nature.

The City does own a closed circuit television (CCTV) device that is used exclusively, year round, to inspect the City’s sanitary sewer system. The City may be able to use this device in the future to perform inspections on its storm drainage system.

7.2.3 Water Quality
The City does not maintain any water quality devices or monitoring programs related to its storm drainage system. However, effluent from San Pedro Creek (at the intersection of the creek and the Pacific Ocean) is monitored regularly by the San Mateo County Public Health Department. San Pedro Creek conveys a significant amount of the City’s storm water from the Linda Mar and Park Pacifica neighborhoods. Though the drainage channel receives flows from other sources besides storm water, the City might be able to utilize the long-term results of the County’s monitoring program to determine how storm water flow contributes to surface water quality in the creek, particularly after storm events.

7.3 Future Maintenance
The City should establish a long-term maintenance program that includes inspections, cleaning, and rehabilitation/replacement (R/R) of infrastructure, when appropriate. The maintenance program will be carried out on a rotating schedule over the course of an extended planning period (10 years), which is based on a preliminary condition assessment of the system and the City’s available time and monetary resources. Primary goals of the maintenance program are to:
• Prioritize inspections of existing City infrastructure based on age and condition. • Perform scheduled inspections on the system on an annual basis. • Use information obtained through the inspection program to identify required maintenance and R/R projects.
• Develop a data recording system to keep track of inspections performed. • Issue an annual report that identifies the overall condition of the system, discusses the completion of inspection and maintenance goals, and provides recommendations based on collected information for future maintenance efforts.

7.3.1 Program Implementation
The proposed maintenance program will be overseen by the Director of Public Works and carried out by Public Works staff. The maintenance program will include an annual commitment from the City of monetary and time resources, including the cooperation and involvement of a variety of staff members. City staff will be responsible for performing inspection, replacement, and rehabilitation projects when appropriate to help maintain the working status of the drainage system. A key component of the maintenance program, as with any long-term management plan, is documentation and analysis of work performed.

11.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 7 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 7-3

7.3.2 Schedule
Figure 7.1 and Table 7.1 indicate the recommended prioritization for the inspection of storm infrastructure facilities, over the course of 10 years. Once the City has completed inspection of its entire system, the inspection rotation will restart on the same schedule. It is recommended that the City begin inspections as soon as funding allows. Continuance of a long-term inspection schedule will help support the maintenance program, sustain a manageable R/R plan, and ensure a functioning storm drainage system.

7.3.3 Inspection Program
Thorough and regular inspections of the City’s storm drainage infrastructure will provide detailed information of the system for preventative maintenance and future planning efforts. An inspection plan will also create an opportunity for the City to regularly perform condition assessments of its storm drainage system. The objectives of the inspection program are to:
• Support the City’s R/R program.
• Refine a schedule for the inspection of the City’s collection system based on observed conditions and age.
• Evaluate the need for cleaning.
• Assess the condition of the City storm drainage pipelines, inlets, and manholes.

7.3.3.1 Methods
This section summarizes the pipeline and manhole inspection methods to be used by the City as a part of the maintenance program.
• Inspection of Pipelines: The City will utilize both CCTV and visual methods to inspect storm drainage infrastructure. Cleaning or rehabilitation efforts should be considered if staff encounters blockages or structural damage of pipelines. • Condition Assessment: Whenever CCTV inspection is used, a condition assessment should be performed. This provides an opportunity for structural and maintenance defects to be identified, and evaluation of the previous R/R projects that have been implemented.
• Inspection of Inlets and Manholes: Manholes and inlets should be visually inspected and cleared of debris, if necessary. Results of the inspection can be entered on a standardized inspection form as appropriate. City maintenance crews and on-call contractors should visually inspect all inlets and manholes they enter when work is being performed on the system.

7.3.3.2 Frequency
The proposed inspection schedule in Figure 7.1 and Table 7.1 correspond to average inspection of approximately 5 miles of pipeline per year. While regular inspections are to be performed annually, inspections can also be carried out on an ongoing basis as work or other maintenance tasks are being done in the City. Based on the results of the inspection program and R/R projects, the City may decide to alter the schedule to target areas most in need of inspection and maintenance. However, while the City may adjust the prioritization of infrastructure areas, the City’s entire storm drainage system should still be inspected over the course of the 10-year planning period.

11.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT -This Page Intentionally Left Blank -

11.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

SNEATH LN
OCEANA
BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

GELLERT BLVD

PALMETTO AVE

SKYLINE DR

KING DR

ROSITA RD
J

UNIPERO
SERRA
BLVD

CALLAN BLVD

HICKEY BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

SWEENEY RIDGE TRL

MISSION RD
CRESPI
DR

COAST HWY

FLEETWOOD DR

SKYLINE BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

SERRAMONTE BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD SAN PEDRO MOUNTAIN RD

PEREZ DR

FAIRWAY DR

ONEONTA AVE

PALOMA AVE

ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE

INVERNESS DR
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: San Mateo County, ESRI
O
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Legend
Open Channels
Roadways
Study Area
Waterbody
Inpection Schedules
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
CHAPTER 7 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Figure 7.1 Recommended Pipeline Inspection Program
280
1 35

11.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank11.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 7 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 7-7
Table 7.1 Maintenance and Inspection Schedule
Area Rotation
Year Drainage Area Length of Pipeline to Inspect (feet) A 1 Vallemar, Rockaway, Headlands, Linda Mar 31,400
B 2 Fairway Park 23,500
C 3 East and West Sharp Park 45,300
D 4 East Edgemar, West Edgemar, Monterey Road 26,500
E 5 Monterey Road, East and West Fairmont 32,100
F 6 Monterey Road, East and West Fairmont 36,200
G 7 Linda Mar and Park Pacifica 24,100
H 8 Linda Mar and Park Pacifica 32,900
I 9 Linda Mar and Park Pacifica 24,900
J 10 West Linda Mar, Pedro Point 30,400

7.3.3.3 Data Management
Data collected during the implementation of the proposed storm drainage system inspection plan will be managed and analyzed in accordance with the information presented in this section.

Analysis and Categorization of Pipeline Inspection Data. Following completion of the CCTV inspection, a condition grade can be assigned to each pipeline segment using the PACP Quick Rating system to quantify the types of defects (both structural and maintenance) observed.

PACP assigns defect severity grades (both structural and O&M) for observed conditions in a pipe segment. Defect grades are described in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 NASSCO PACP Defect Grades
Defect
Grade Defect Title Descriptions
5 Immediate Action Defects requiring immediate action
4 Poor Severe defects that will become Grade 5 defects within the foreseeable future
3 Fair Moderate defects that will continue to deteriorate 2 Good Defects that have not begun to deteriorate
1 Excellent Minor defects
The PACP Quick Rating system is a way of expressing the number of occurrences of the two highest severity grades in a pipe segment. A four character score is determined for the overall pipe segment condition, structural condition, and O&M condition as follows:

1. The first character is the highest severity grade occurring along the pipe segment.

2. The second character is the total number of occurrences of the highest severity grade. If the total number exceeds 9, then alphabetic characters are used as follows:
a. 10 to 14 – A
b. 15 to 19 – B
c. 20 to 24 – C, etc.

3. The third character is the next highest severity grade occurring along the segment.

11.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

4. The fourth character is the total number of the second highest severity grade occurrences, derived as in item 2 above.

As an example, a pipeline segment whose two highest defects are 17 grade four defects and 7 grade 2 defects would be assigned a PACP Quick Rating of 4B27. If a pipe segment has only one defect grade, the first two characters are the grade and quantity of defects, and the last two characters are 00. A pipe segment with no defects would be assigned a Quick Rating of 0000.

Other rating systems are available and may be used by the City at its discretion.

7.3.4 Cleaning Program
Cleaning of storm drainage pipelines is a task that can be performed as necessary before CCTV inspections and to clear debris that obstructs storm water flows through the system.

7.3.4.1 Methods
There are several different methods and pieces of equipment that are used for cleaning pipelines. Each method has a specific purpose and restrictions for use (e.g., pipe size, flow restrictions, solids removal). The following summarizes some of the typically used methods for pipeline cleaning:
• Mechanical Cleaning: Mechanical cleaning involves pulling or forcing a mechanical mechanism through the sewer pipe to clean debris and sediment out of the pipe.

Examples of mechanical cleaning are rodding and bucket machine. Rodding utilizes rotating blades that break up debris, with a bucket machine collects material and deposits it into a bucket.
• Hydraulic Cleaning: Hydraulic cleaning equipment is a frequently used method applied for cleaning pipelines less than or equal to 18 inches in diameter. Examples include jetting, flushing, and balling. Jetting involves the targeted application of high-pressure water, while flushing involves the introduction of heavy flows into the pipeline. Balling utilizes a threaded rubber ball that spines and scrubs the pipe interior as flow increases in the pipeline. The City will utilize the cleaning methods and equipment that are available and most appropriate for a given segment of storm drainage pipeline.

7.3.4.2 Frequency
Cleaning will be performed on an as-needed basis, in conjunction with the inspection schedule provided in Figure 7.1 and Table 7.1. In general, pipelines with highest inspection priority may also indicate high priority cleaning areas. Older infrastructure and pipes requiring rehabilitation or replacement may indicate “hot spots,” where a greater-than normal amount of debris may occur. As a part of its reporting program, the City should indicate where cleaning “hot spots” occur, and include regular cleanings of these areas and other parts of the system into the annual maintenance schedule.

The City’s system maintenance crews should record observations regarding the nature and extent of materials that are removed during pipeline cleaning. An example cleaning observation code is presented in Table 7.3. These observations, in addition to information obtained from the inspection program, will be used by the City to optimize the cleaning frequency.

11.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 7 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 7-9
Table 7.3 Cleaning Observation Code
Material Clear Light Moderate Heavy
Debris Code: CL
No observable debris
Code: DL
Minor amount of debris
15 minutes or less to clean
1 pass
Code: DM
Less than 5 gallons of debris per
line segment
15-30 minutes to clean
2-3 passes
Code: DH
More than 5 gallons of debris per
line segment
More than 30 minutes to clean
More than 4 passes
Operator concern for future
stoppage
Grease Code: CL
No observable grease
Code: GL
Minor amount of grease
15 minutes or less to clean
1 pass
Code: GM
Small ‘chunks’
15-30 minutes to clean
2-3 passes
Code: GH
Big ‘chunks’ or ‘logs’
More than 30 minutes to clean
More than 4 passes
Operator concern for future
stoppage
Roots Code: CL
No observable roots
Code: RL
Minor amount of roots
15 minutes or less to clean
1 pass
Code: RM
Thin stringy roots
No ‘clumps’
15-30 minutes to clean
2-3 passes
Code: RH
Thick roots
Large ‘clumps’
More than 30 minutes to clean
More than 4 passes
Operator concern for future
stoppage
Other Code: CL Code: OL Code: OM Code: OH
Pipe wall fragments,
soil, dirt, rock
No observable
materials
Specify material (if possible)
Minor amounts of material
Specify material
Less than 5 gallons of material per
line segment
Specify material
More than 5 gallons of material per
line segment
Operator concern for future
stoppage
Notes:
(1) This table was adapted from Best Practices Manual: Hydroflush Cleaning of Small Diameter Sewers, California Collection System Collaborative Benchmarking Group, February 2001.

11.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-10 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

7.4 Rehabilitation and Replacement Program
The storm drainage R/R program consists of removing older storm drains that are susceptible to failure and replacing them with pipelines of appropriate condition and capacity. The R/R program encompasses a long-term commitment from the City to maintain its storm drainage infrastructure to serve existing and future users of the system. Establishing the R/R program alongside the long-term maintenance program will extend the useful life of existing storm drains and maintain the operation of the storm drainage system.

In general, rehabilitation/replacement projects will be initiated based on the results of the CCTV inspections and other regular maintenance events. As such, R/R projects will be performed on an as-needed basis. Once specific pipelines or channels have been identified as needing rehabilitation or replacement, they can be categorized as either minor or major rehabilitation/replacement projects.

7.4.1 Minor Rehabilitation
Storm drainage pipeline, inlet, and manhole defects requiring rehabilitation or reconstruction will be reported to the appropriate Director of Public Works. The Director will make the determination as to whether the rehabilitation/replacement can be done by inhouse employees.

If the work exceeds in-house capabilities, the work will be coordinated through the Engineering Division.

7.4.2 Major Rehabilitation/Replacement
Work that exceeds the capability of in-house forces will be added to the City’s Capital Improvement Program through the Engineering Division. Major rehabilitation/replacement work will be prioritized and scheduled based on the severity of the defect and available funds.

7.5 Equipment
As noted above, the City does own its own CCTV equipment, but it is currently used on a daily basis to inspect the sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the City may choose to utilize private contractors at times when the CCTV equipment is not available to perform storm drainage system cleaning and CCTV inspection work. If the cost is justified, the City could consider purchasing additional cleaning and/or inspection equipment specifically for storm drainage system maintenance. As discussed in Section 7.3.4, a variety of cleaning and inspection methods are available depending on level of treatment required. However, the City would ideally be able to utilize its existing vactor truck and CCTV equipment for storm drainage maintenance purposes.

11.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 8 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 8-1
Chapter 8

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This chapter presents the recommended capital improvement program (CIP) for the City storm drainage system, a summary of the capital costs, and a basic assessment of the possible financial impact on individual existing and future users. This chapter is organized to assist the City in making finance decisions, and to plan the storm drainage system improvements and maintenance tasks. The CIP is based on the evaluation of the City’s storm drainage system, planning area, and land use, as detailed in the recommended projects described in the previous chapters.

8.1 Capital Improvement Project Costs
Carollo contracted with Freyer & Laureta, Inc. to develop planning level cost estimates for the proposed improvements. A copy of their report is included in Appendix F. The project costs are in 2022 dollars. The estimated costs are considered Class 4 estimates as defined by Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) standards, with an expected accuracy range of -30 to +50 percent. The report discusses in greater detail project cost line items and contingencies.

8.2 Project Prioritization
The recommended improvements were grouped and prioritized into three improvement categories.
• Category 1: Projects to mitigate severe flooding under the 10-year and 50-year design storms.
• Category 2: Project to address drainage issues that are less severe than Category 1. • Category 3: Projects to address model simulated flooding that have not historically been observed, and projects to extend storm drain infrastructure to unserved areas.

8.3 Capital Improvement Cost
A summary of the capital project costs is presented in Table 8.1. The table also shows the capital cost by project category. More detailed information regarding the capital cost estimates for each project is provided in Appendix F.

11.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | DRAFT
Table 8.1 Capital Improvement Plan Cost Summary
Project Name Project
Number
Capital Improvement Cost by Category ($) Capital
Improvement
Cost(1) ($) 1 2 3
Lower Linda Mar WLM-1
WLM-2 $5,200,000 $5,200,000
Monterey Road
MR-1A
MR-1B
MR-1C
MR-2
$6,900,000 $6,900,000
Sharp Park
SP-1A
SP-1B
SP-1C
SP-2
$6,000,000 $6,000,000
Edgemar Avenue
EE-1
EE-2
EE-3
EE-4
$5,000,000 $5,000,000
Rockway Beach Avenue RW-1 $700,000 $700,000
Madeira Drive LM-1 $500,000 $500,000
Lauren Avenue V-1 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Total $18,100,000 $5,000,000 $2,400,000 $25,500,000
Notes:
(1) Cost estimates were developed by Freyer and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022 dollars.

8.4 CIP Detail Sheets
Appendix G provides a detailed project summary for each of the recommended improvement projects. The CIP detail sheets include detailed project descriptions, maps, project locations, project components, project descriptions, and project cost summaries.

11.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 9 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 9-1
Chapter 9

FUNDING OPTIONS

9.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 8, this Master Plan identifies approximately 25.5 million dollars in recommended capital improvements. For the City, as it is for many cities throughout California, it is challenging to implement storm drain capacity upgrades due to the lack of funding for these types of projects. This chapter provides a high-level overview of some options for acquiring funding for the projects recommended in this plan. There are two main options that were examined as part of this high-level review. These are grant and loan opportunities, and the development of a stormwater utility. The following sections summarize both approaches. It is recommended that the City study each option in more detail, and additional studies may be required moving forward depending on the funding option being pursued (e.g., rate studies, etc.).

9.2 Grant and Loan Funding Options
A search of available federal and state grant and loan opportunities was performed as part of this Master Plan to identify potential funding mechanisms that may assist the City with the project design and construction costs. This section presents a high-level summary of potentially applicable federal and state financing opportunities for the City’s identified storm water improvement projects.

9.2.1 Federal and State Low Interest Loans and Grants
Federal and state funding sources and programs are continuously evolving and influenced by legislative initiatives and regulatory drivers which can impact funding program priorities, program authorizations and appropriations, and project applicability. The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), has significantly impacted the short-term effects of federal and statewide funding on waterrelated projects, although long-term impacts of BIL on funding programs is currently unknown.

In addition, the Governor has included budget in the California Comeback Plan (2021) and The California Blueprint which may provide additional opportunities for state funding.

Federal, state, and local grant and loan funding sources are available for the planning, design and construction of water, wastewater, and public infrastructure projects. Grants and low interest loan funding programs typically target specific types of projects and/or have specific objectives that a project must achieve. Agencies often require projects to meet as many objectives as possible, such as:
• Builds Regional partnerships.
• Incorporates integrated project benefits.
• Enhances water conservation or efficiency.
• Protects groundwater resources.
• Provides renewable energy improvements or energy efficiency.

11.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 9 9-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
• Addresses risk and resiliency.
• Demonstrates consistency with the State and Regional policies and objectives. • Demonstrates regional cooperation and partnerships with partners and stakeholders. • Serves a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) or severely DAC.

The federal government’s Justice40 initiative has made it a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments are earmarked for disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution. Funding categories that fall under this initiative include climate change, clean energy and energy efficiency, clean transit, affordable and sustainable housing, training and workforce development, remediation and reduction of legacy pollution, and the development of critical clean water and wastewater infrastructure. This new directive places restrictions the amount of funding that is available to communities not considered disadvantaged. However, there are several grant and loan programs that may accommodate the City’s demographics and timelines.

Federal and State low interest loans and grant programs have become more competitive due to an overall increased interest in alternate funding programs as well as federal and state budget constraints. Most programs require a public entity or agency be the applicant or serve as a conduit for funding to private entities. More so, as funds are limited and highly competitive, the programs require a challenging qualification process, may expire after a specified time, and are not typically a long-term funding solution.

Available federal, state, and local funding sources should be considered as potential funding mechanisms to help reduce the overall costs of the project for the City and its rate payers.

However, it is important to recognize that due to the above-mentioned factors, sources of low interest loan financing and grant funding are limited.

Federal and State funding programs generally providing key opportunities for water, wastewater and stormwater projects include the USEPA, the State of California’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), U.S. Economic Development Administration (USEDA),United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and others. The USEPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) and State of California’s CWSRF programs provide some of the best avenues for securing larger sources of loan funding (and potential principal forgiveness), but application processes can be extensive and CWSRF, due to its oversubscription for program funds, has had to implement a priority scoring system to screen and select projects for loan funding. Programs under the EPA, EDA, USACE, SWRCB, California DWR, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and other state programs can provide for sources of grant funding and have the obvious advantage over loans in that they do not require repayment. These programs typically do not fully finance a project due to match requirements, are more competitive to secure, and are more specific in program priorities.

There are numerous factors that should be considered in the pursuit of external low interest loan and grant funding, including:
• Federal and State funding programs are project specific – requiring a good fit of the project to the program priorities: Most low interest loan and grant programs target a specific type of project or purpose. For a project to be competitive, it must meet the intent of the program.

11.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 9 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 9-3
• Grant programs typically do not cover the full cost of the project: Most federal and state grant programs do not cover the full cost of the project, requiring the sponsoring agency to provide a minimum cost share ranging from 25 to 75 percent (in-kind donations are applicable matches).
• Demonstration of Ability to Pay for Project: Funding agencies typically require the Agency to demonstrate the ability to construct, operate, and maintain the project without external funding.
• Funding Restrictions. Limited programs allow for the retroactive funding of construction work, and some programs will only fund activities that are conducted post selection or post executed agreement to consider those costs as eligible. Most programs do not allow for start of construction prior to environmental clearance (CEQA/(NEPA) by the agency.
• Application Timelines: Application timing is critical for most grant and loan programs. Typically grant programs release funding announcements once each year with a 45 to 60 day window to apply, and availability varies year to year pending Congressional appropriations.
Low interest loan programs typically accept applications on a rolling basis (e.g.

WIFIA, I-Bank, SRF), however may require submission of pre-application materials by a prescribed date.
• Award Timing: With the increased interest in external funding and limited funding agency staff availability, the review, selection, and execution of a funding agreement can take on average 12 months and sometime longer.
- In general, agencies should plan on submitting a loan application 6 to 12 months in advance of when funding is needed and definitely prior to construction start. • Project and Documentation Readiness / Readiness to Start Construction: Identification of required project documentation early on is critical to ensure the appropriate level of documentation (e.g., engineering, environmental, and financial) is available to support the grant application.
• Low Interest Loan and Grant awards is NOT a promise of grant reimbursement:
- Most low interest loans and grants are reimbursements and not “cash up front.” This requires that a source of funding be available for the construction of the project. - Grant reimbursements are subject to annual budget and appropriations processes and thus disbursement of grant funds on schedule is not guaranteed. • Federal Compliance Requirements: Federal funding sources require compliance with federal requirements including American Iron and Steel (AIS), Davis Bacon (DB) Wage Determinations, Anti-lobbying, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), Build America, Buy America (BABA), and reporting requirements. This can add to the overall administrative and construction costs as well as to the administrative requirements for the project.

Because of the constraints of federal and state grant and loan programs, some agencies secure low interest loan financing for the entire project while simultaneously pursuing grants where the entity will be competitive. Smaller grants can also be pursued as they are helpful in building relationships with funding agencies and reducing the financial burden on the City.

Potential Federal and State funding programs identified for the project and to evaluate further for the City’s stormwater projects are summarized in Appendix H.

11.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 9 9-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

9.2.2 Grant and Loan Options Summary
The majority of federal and state grants and low-interest loans that were evaluated are competitive and limited in their funding capacity, with program funding availability dependent upon annual appropriations, along with other restrictions.

As the City evaluates potential funding opportunities, one strategy to consider is grouping projects into single packages, based on timing, purpose, location and other factors. Some external funding programs accept packages of projects assuming they each meet the defined priorities of the program. Where feasible, packaging multiple projects into one application will make the projects eligible for larger funding programs, reduce workload on City staff and potentially award higher amounts of funding at one time.

The City’s community demographics put it at odds with some federal programs’ focus on funding projects in small, rural and/or disadvantaged communities. Despite this restriction, there are several opportunities available at the federal and state level that should be further evaluated for financing the project.

The following funding opportunities which provide for low interest loan or grant, may provide opportunities for the projects:
• USEPA: WIFIA (loans must be ≥ $20 million)
• USACE: Section 219: Environmental Infrastructure Program (grant requiring Congressional authorization)
• FEMA: Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grants (grant up to $50 million) • SWRCB: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (up to $5 million in loan forgiveness) • SWRCB: Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants (OSG) Program (grant up to $5 million)
It should be noted that projects funded with federal financing would need to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), AIS, BABA, Davis Bacon, DBE, competitive procurement, etc. These conditions may add to the project’s overall cost, influence project schedules and increase some administrative burden.

Critical to the success of securing external funding is the tracking of potential funding opportunities, fit of the project to the funding program priorities, readiness of the project, and timing of application submittals. Because many programs have limits on the amount of funding they can offer, it is important to apply early and with complete documentation to prevent complications in the funding process.

9.3 Development of a Stormwater Utility
This section provides a conceptual outline of the steps that the City could take to establish a rate-funding mechanism for its stormwater operations, capital, or both. This is intended to provide a high-level overview of the actions often taken to establish this funding, and it is not a recommendation.

11.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CHAPTER 9 | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022 | 9-5

9.3.1 Step 1 - Establish Funding Target
As part of the City’s Master Planning process, the City has identified recommended improvement projects. In order to implement a stormwater utility, the projects will need to include a timeline and funding need. It is important that these projects have clear cash flow forecasts, which would be necessary for subsequent steps.

9.3.2 Step 2 - Identify Non-Rate Funding Options
Once the capital projects are outlined, the City would develop a funding approach for these projects, considering first all available non-rate funding mechanisms. A full funding analysis is necessary, but these funding sources typically include grants, loans, tax assessments, and existing reserves, among other sources.

If these funding sources are not secured, the City would estimate the probability of funding and identify alternatives where applicable.

9.3.3 Step 3 - Forecast Operating Expenses
The City would compile a forecast of O&M expenses, with at least five to ten years projected.

This would include labor, materials, overhead, and other allocated costs such as fleet expenses.

9.3.4 Step 4 - Calculate the Rate Revenue Requirement
The rate revenue requirement is the amount of funding needed each year that must come from user fees and rates. This is calculated by first identifying all revenue sources, including non-rate funding for capital and non-operating revenues such as property taxes, lease revenue, and other sources, and then subtracting all expenses, including O&M, capital projects, and debt service. If the City wishes to build reserve balances, it should also incorporate these targets. The result of this calculation is the rate revenue requirement. Any user fees assessed by the City must generate at least this much revenue if the City hopes to meet its funding needs.

9.3.5 Step 4 - Quantify the Units of Service
With the revenue requirement identified, the next step is to quantify how many customers would pay user fees and how much. The units of service is another way of saying how many customers benefit from the stormwater system and to what degree. Not all customers use the system identically, so it would be unreasonable to simply divide the revenue requirement evenly to all parcels. A commercial shopping center with a large parking lot will have greater stormwater runoff and generate more water quality constituents than a smaller one with onsite stormwater retention, bioswales, or other stormwater management infrastructure. Similarly, a single family home will have a different runoff profile than both of these parcels.

To the extent possible, the City would identify how much each of these customers benefits from the system and quantify this value in a single number, such as equivalent residential units. This provides a common benchmark for calculating fees. This can be achieved with varying levels of detail, ranging from using the tax assessor’s parcel sizes and assigning estimated stormwater runoff coefficients to each customer, all the way up to a full geospatial analysis using aerial imagery to estimate impervious area.

11.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 9 9-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT

9.3.6 Step 5 - Determine the Stormwater User Fees
With the revenue requirements and units of service developed, the City can calculate the rates by dividing the revenue requirements across all units of service. This calculation can then be escalated for inflation each year. It would be recommended that the City undergo a full cost of service review of this process every three to five years to maintain a fair and reasonable rate structure that allocates costs to each customer in line with the benefits received.

9.4 Funding Options Summary
Grant and loans are an ideal way to fund stormwater projects, if feasible. Due to the City’s demographics, however, securing grants and loans for stormwater projects may be challenging, but not impossible. In order to give the City the best chance as securing a grant or a loan, it is recommended that the City commence some level of design for the recommended projects, as this is viewed as more favorable by the State and Federal Government. Appendix H provides a summary of the major grant and loan funding options examined as part of this Master Plan.

Development of a stormwater utility is another way of establishing a funding mechanism for the recommended improvements. This chapter provided a high level road map of the steps needed to develop a stormwater utility. If the City’s residents would support the development of a stormwater utility, this option could provide a sustainable funding source for stormwater improvements in the future.

11.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022
Appendix A

REFERENCES
• American Society of Civil Engineers, 2015. Flood Resistant Design and Construction.

July 2015.
• California Coastal Commission, 2018. Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits. November 7, 2018.
• California Natural Resources Agency, 2018. California’s Changing Climate 2018.

California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.
• City of Pacifica, Existing Conditions and Key Issues Report for the 2040 General Plan Update, May 2022, Dyett & Bhatia.
• City of Pacifica, 2022 Draft General Plan, City of Pacifica. • City of Pacifica, Guidelines for Drainage Review, City of Pacifica. • City of Pacifica, 2012 Storm Drainage System Master Plan, February 2012, Carollo Engineers, Inc.
• City of Pacifica Storm Drainage System Drawings.
• City of Pacifica AutoCAD and Record Drawings.
• County of San Mateo, 2018. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. March 2018. • ESA, 2019. Development and Screening of Burlingame Shoreline Adaptation Strategies Memorandum.
• October 8, 2019.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2022. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

Search by Address.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=1103%20Airport%20Blvd%2C%20B urlingame%2C%20CA%2094010#searchresultsanchor Accessed March 2022. • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2022. Tides & Currents. Water Levels for San Francisco (9414290)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=9414290. Accessed March 2022. • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2022. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nostechrpt01-global-regionalSLR-scenarios-US.pdf Accessed March 2022.

11.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

11.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix B

LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

11.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan)

11.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) The purpose of this chapter is to describe existing and planned land use in the Planning Area and present the policy framework that will guide the City on development decisions. The chapter forms the core of the General Plan and its policies articulate the community’s land use and growth priorities through 2040. It includes the Land Use Diagram, land use designations, standards for density and intensity, and limitations on development expressed by the policies.

The land use framework for each sub-area is then provided in greater detail.

Guiding and implementing policies aim to define the Planning Area’s physical development and reinforce its commitment to balancing needs for open space and habitat conservation; housing opportunities; economic development; neighborhood character; and other issues.
4 LAND USE

11.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-2 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

4.1 EXISTING LAND USE
Background
Before visitation by the Portola expedition in 1769,
Pacifica was home to the Costanoans, now known
as the Ohlone, who were stewards of the land for
thousands of years. Originally visited by the Portola
expedition in 1769, Pacifica remained primarily agricultural until after the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906. Land speculators, stimulated by the construction of the Ocean Shore Railroad in 1905, subdivided and developed a series of small, coastside communities, including Edgemar, Vallemar, and the areas now known as Sharp Park, Pedro Point, and Rockaway Beach. These communities, together with Pacific Manor, Westview, Fairway Park, and Linda Mar,
incorporated in 1957 as the City of Pacifica. The city
grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, and most of its
current housing—56 percent as of 2020—was built
during those decades. Growth slowed in the 1970s,
and then slowed further in the following decades,
owing to the scarcity of developable land and infrastructure constraints. While growth increased again in the 1990s, housing production and population
growth has been modest from 2000 onward. About
730 units currently standing were built in the 1990s,
dropping to 480 units built between 2000 to 2009,
with the total amounting to 1,215 units over the 20
years between 1990 and 2009. From 2009 to 2019,
Pacifica has added approximately 100 units.1.

Current Land Use Pattern
Parks and Open Space
The Planning Area covers 7,665 acres, not including
road rights-of-way. Over 3,600 acres (47 percent) of
this land is preserved as open space. Most of Pacifica’s rugged ridges are part of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA) or Sharp Park. Sharp
Park Golf Course, San Pedro Valley County Park,
and Pacifica State Beach represent other important
public open space holdings. Parks and open space are
discussed in further detail in the Open Space and
Community Facilities chapter.
1 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019.

Residential
Residential use makes up 26 percent of the Planning
Area and 70 percent of developed land2 in the Planning Area, covering 1,984 acres. As shown in Figure 4-1, residential land is the predominant land use in
the neighborhoods that occupy Pacifica’s five valleys,
along the coast, and in the highlands bordering Daly
City and South San Francisco. Most residential land
in Pacifica (90 percent) contains single-family housing, which is typical in nearly all neighborhoods.

Multi-family housing is mainly located around
Hickey and Skyline Boulevards; along Terra Nova
and Oddstad Boulevards in the Park Pacifica neighborhood; interspersed among single-family houses and commercial uses in the West Sharp Park neighborhood; and along the coast in the West EdgemarPacific Manor neighborhood.

Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use
The Planning Area includes 125 acres of commercial
uses, including a small amount of mixed-use development. Commercial land is located at the City’s shopping centers (Linda Mar, Pacific Manor, Fairmont, Eureka Square, Park Mall, Pedro Point) and at smaller shopping centers and districts at Rockaway
Beach, Crespi Drive, Palmetto Avenue, and along
the Highway 1 corridor. Pacifica has a small amount
of mixed-use development along Palmetto Avenue in
West Sharp Park, in Rockaway Beach and in Pedro
Point. Overall, West Sharp Park has the greatest mix
of uses throughout the neighborhood. Hotels, along
with most visitor-serving commercial uses, are primarily in the Coastal Zone in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood. There are only 4 acres of office use
in Pacifica. Finally, the City has a small amount of
industrial land (17 acres), mainly located along Palmetto, north of the West Sharp Park commercial area.
2 Developed land includes all land uses except for Open Space, Agriculture, or Vacant/Undeveloped.

11.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-3
M i l a g r a R i d g e
( G G N R A )
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
S h a r p P a r k
G o l f C o u r s e
San Pedro Vall e y Count y Park
S h a r p P a r k
M o r i P o i n t
( G G N R A )
S w e e n e y R i d g e ( G G N R A )

FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

GRAND AVE

ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

AVALON DR

MI LAGR ADR

MONTEREY RD

IVERNESS DR

NELSON AVE

PA ML ETTO AVE

ADOBE DR

BEACH BLVD

HICKEY B LV D
P a c i fi c
O c e a n
Northern
Coastal
Bluffs
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
P e n i n s u l a Wa t e rs h e d ( S F P U C )
Rockaway
Beach
P e d r o P o i nt He a d l a n d s (GG N R A)
Devil' s Slide Tunnel

PERALTA RD

ROSITA RD

EVE RGLAD ES DR

M ANZA NI T A DR

LERI D A WAY

R OBERTSRD

SHAR P P A RK R D

BRADFORD WAY

ESPLANADE AV E

E DGEMAR A VE

GAT EWAYDR

FIRECREST AVE

OCEANA BLVD

SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE

MOANAW AY
Water
Recycling
Plant
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
Agriculture
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family
Mobile Homes
Commercial
Auto Services
Hotels
Office
Mixed Use
Utilities
Industrial
Schools
Church
Other Public or Community Uses
Source: City of Pacifica, 2021; San Mateo County, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Figure 4-1:

Existing Land Use
Planning Area
City Limits
Other Open Space
Parks & Accessible Open Space
Beach
Vacant/Undeveloped
Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use

11.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-4 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Public and Institutional Uses
Public, community, and institutional uses occupy
398 acres of land. Of this, about 70 percent is school
land and buildings, including the campuses of
Oceana and Terra Nova high schools. Other significant public land holdings—not including parks and open space—include the two library sites; the Calera
Creek Water Recycling Plant; police and fire stations;
and former school sites now used for other purposes.

Agriculture and Recreation
There are about 360 acres of land used for agriculture or private recreation. About 260 acres of this are within City limits, at Millwood Ranch, Park Pacifica
Stables, and properties directly north of Sharp Park
and along Linda Mar Boulevard. About 104 acres are
outside city limits, at Shamrock Ranch between San
Pedro Creek and Highway 1. Most land in this category involves horse boarding and trail riding and has a rural character.

Undeveloped and Vacant Land
Vacant and undeveloped land totals 1,1,41 acres or
16 percent of land in the Planning Area. About 15
percent of this land (184 acres) is outside City limits. Large parcels of undeveloped land are present along the northern coastal bluffs, Milagra Canyon,
Gypsy Hill, the Rockaway Quarry site, the face of
Cattle Hill, Fassler Ridge, and the slope of Montara
Mountain. Smaller vacant “infill” lots are scattered
in neighborhoods. Given environmental factors such
as slope and sensitive species, there are constraints on the development potential of many of these sites.

Figure 4-1 maps the City’s land use pattern, while
Figure 4-2 charts the relative distribution of land by
land use in the Planning Area. Sharp Park Golf Course and Mori Point. Over 3,600 acres are preserved as open space (top). Single-family houses comprise three-quarters of Pacifica’s housing (middle). Commercial land is concentrated at shopping centers and small neighborhood commercial areas (bottom).

11.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-5

4.2 LAND USE FRAMEWORK Figure 4-2: Current Land Use Distribution The Land Use Diagram, (Figure 4-3 and the foldout
in the back of this plan) illustrates the community’s
vision for land use in 2035. This Diagram reflects
planning themes presented in Chapter 1. The land
use designations depicted indicate the use and form
of development. Planned land use will be guided
by Plan policies and programs for hillside and open
space preservation; housing and commercial development.

Land Use
The Land Use Diagram is a graphic representation
of planned land use designations; it will be used in
conjunction with policies established in the Plan to
review and approve, modify or deny proposed development projects. The Land Use Diagram includes a legend that shows land use categories whose densities and allowable uses are specified in the Land Use Designation below.

Land Use Designations
Land use designations establish allowed uses, maximum density and intensity, and the type and character of development that is expected. Details on development standards are established in the zoning
ordinance, and more than one zoning district may
be consistent with a General Plan land use designation. The Implementing Policies of this Chapter may contain more specific guidance on the use of individual sites.

According to State law, the General Plan must establish standards of population density and building intensity for each land use designation. The Plan stipulates residential densities in housing units per gross acre; population density can be obtained by applying
average persons per housing unit3 to the housing unit
densities. For nonresidential uses, the Plan specifies a maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site
area (Floor Area Ratio or FAR). Recommended den3 Based on 2015-2019 U.S. Census data, the number of persons per total housing units is 2.8
Open Space
Public/Community/
Institutional
Residential Uses
Commercial Uses
Mixed Use
Industrial Uses
Agriculture
Vacant/
Undeveloped
47%
26%
1%
0%
0% 16%
5%
5%
Large pieces of undeveloped land are present on Gypsy Hill (pictured) and many other hillsides (middle). Smaller vacant “infill” lots are scattered in neighborhoods (bottom).

11.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-6 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M i l a g r a R i d g e
( G G N R A )
Pacifica
State
Beach
Pacifica
Pier
S h a r p P a r k
G o l f C o u r s e
San Pedro Vall e y Count y Park
S h a r p P a r k
M o r i P o i n t
( G G N R A )
S w e e n e y R i d g e ( G G N R A )

FASSLER AV E TERRA NOVA BLVD

LINDA MAR BLVD

ODDSTAD BLVD

GRAND AVE

ROCKAWAY BE ACH AVE

REINA DEL MAR AVE

CRESPI DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

PALOMA AVE

CLARENDON RD

PALMETTO AVE

MANOR DR

AVALON DR

MI LAGR ADR

MONTEREY RD

IVERNESS DR

NELSON AVE

PA ML ETTO AVE

ADOBE DR

BEACH BLVD

PERALTA RD

ROSITA RD

EVE RGLAD ES DR

M ANZA NI T A DR

LERI D A WAY

R OBERTSRD

SHAR P P A RK R D

BRADFORD WAY

ESPLANADE AV E

E DGEMAR A VE

GAT EWAYDR

FIRECREST AVE

OCEANA BLVD

SHARP PARK RD TALBO T AVE

MOANAW AY
·|}þ35
·|}þ1
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1 2 Source: City of Pacifica, 2019; San Mateo County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.

Figure 4-3:

Land Use Diagram
Retail Commercial
Office Commercial
Service Commercial
Visitor-Serving Commercial
Low Intensity Visitor Commercial
Transitional Open Space/Residential
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
(upto 0.2 units/acre)
(0.2 - 2.0 units/acre)
(3 - 9 units/acre)
(10 - 15 units/acre)
(16 - 21 units/acre)*
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Center
(16 - 26 units/acre)*
(upto 50 units/acre)
Urban Reserve (Unincorporated)
Transportation Corridor
Public and Semi-Public
Beach/Commuter Parking
Utilities
Park
Conservation
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Coastal Zone Boundary
City Limits
Planning Area
R
ESID
E
N

TIAL MIX
E
D
USE
C
O
M
M
E
R
CIAL
PA
R
KS A
N
D
OPE
N SPA
C
E
O
T
H
E
R
*Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
** ES
MS
HS
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
(upto 0.1 units/acre)
ES
HS
ES
ES
MS HS
ES
ES
Figure 4-3: Land Use Diagram

11.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-7
sity and intensity standards do not imply that development projects must be approved at the maximum intensity specified for each use. Zoning regulations
consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce development potential within the stated ranges. Table 4-1 shows gross density standards for residential categories and FAR standards for the other uses.

Residential
The six residential designations provide for a range
of densities, consistent with neighborhood character
and planned land use.

TRANSITIONAL OPEN SPACE/RESIDENTIAL
In the Transitional Open Space Residential (TOSR)
designation, residential and recreation uses are allowed at a gross density of up to one unit per 10 acres (or 0.1 units per gross acre). Existing legal lots less than 10 acres in area shall be allowed to develop
one dwelling unit consistent with all other applicable zoning and development standards. The density assumed for buildout calculations is 0.08 units per
gross acre.

OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL
In the Open Space/Agriculture/Residential/ (OSAR)
designation, residential, agriculture, and recreation
uses are allowed at a gross density of up to one unit
per five acres (or 0.2 units per gross acre). Farm
worker housing may be permitted on sites zoned for
agriculture uses, consistent with state law, and shall
not be included in density calculations for a site.

The allowable density on a site will be determined
by slope, geology, soils, access, availability of utilities, public safety, and open space values. The density assumed for buildout calculations is 0.15 units per
gross acre.

Very Low Density Residential
The Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) designation provides for development of 0.2 to 2.0 units per gross acre (or 0.5 to 5.0 acres per dwelling unit). Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. The density assumed for buildout calculations is 1.5 units per gross acre.

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Low Density Residential (LDR) designation
provides for development of three to nine dwelling
units per gross acre. Single-family residential is the
primary use intended for LDR areas. Residential
care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Clusters of small-lot development as well as standard subdivisions may be allowed. Buildout is
calculated at 6.5 units per gross acre.

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation is intended for a mix of housing types, including small-lot single-family, attached single-family, apartments, duplexes, townhomes and mobile home
parks at densities of 10 to 15 units per gross acre. Residential care facilities, schools, and community us-es are permitted. Buildout is calculated at 12.5 units per gross acre.

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The High Density Residential (HDR) designation is intended for multi-family apartments, condominiums and townhomes, in multi-story buildings located near shopping areas and transit. Sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater will have an
allowable density between 16 to 21 dwelling units per
gross acre, except that sites of 0.5 acres or more in
size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross
acre. For lawful nonconforming sites less than 5,000
square feet in area, the allowable density shall be 10
to 15 units per gross acre. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses are permitted. Buildout is calculated at 25 units per gross acre.

Mixed Use
The General Plan provides three mixed-use designations to create areas where housing and active commercial uses may be integrated. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are allowed as-of-right in all mixeduse areas within the Coastal Zone.

11.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-8 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
The Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) designation is intended for sites in the Coastal Zone with residential mixed use development potential, including mixed-use with housing and retail, and/or smallscale visitor-oriented commercial uses such as retail, vacation rental, or time-share units. Residential uses
are allowed in the same building as commercial uses
above the ground floor (vertical mixed-use) and in
other locations attached to or detached from commercial uses on the same site (horizontal mixed use).

Hotels are not permitted. Coastal access and public
open space must also be provided, and environmental resources must be evaluated and protected. Sites may be developed up to an overall density of up to 15
units per gross acre, with clustering and sensitive site planning. Non-residential development may have an
FAR up to 0.5 FAR. The total FAR (residential and
non-residential) cannot exceed 1.0. Buildout is calculated at 15 units per gross acre and 0.10 FAR of nonresidential use.

Mixed Use Neighborhood
In the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) designation, new development may include multi-family housing and building with ground-floor retail, restaurant or service uses and housing or offices. Residential uses are allowed in the same building as commercial uses above the ground floor (vertical
mixed- use) and in other locations on the same site
(horizontal mixed use). Public or community uses
and hotels may be permitted at appropriate locations.

The MUN designation allows a density range of 16
to 26 units per gross acre and non-residential development with an FAR up to 1.0 on sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater. Sites of 0.5 acres or
more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per
gross acre and a non-residential development FAR
up to 1.0. For lawful nonconforming sites less than
5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density shall
be 10 to 15 units per gross acre and a non-residential
development FAR up to 0.5. The total FAR (residential and non-residential) cannot exceed 2.0 on sites with 5,000 square feet of area or greater, and cannot
exceed 1.0 on sites with less than 5,000 square feet of New development in Mixed Use Neighborhood areas should
include multi-family housing or ground-floor commercial uses with housing above (top). The Mixed Use Center classification is intended for high-density mixed use development, hotels, or community uses (middle). The Visitor-Serving Commercial classification promotes concentrated development of commercial uses with visitor appeal (bottom).

11.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-9
area. Buildout is calculated based on a 0.25 FAR for
non-residential uses and 25 residential units per gross acre.

MIXED USE CENTER
The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation is
intended for high-density mixed-use development,
including public or community uses and hotels.

Allowable uses include ground-floor retail, restaurant
or service uses and housing or offices. The MUC designation permits housing at a density range of 3030 to 50 units per gross acre and a 2.5 FAR of non-residential development, provided the overall FAR does not to exceed 2.5. For lawful non-conforming sites
less than 5,000 square feet in area, the allowable density shall be 16 to 26 units per gross acre and a nonresidential development FAR up to 0.5. Buildout is calculated at an FAR of 0.35 for non-residential uses
and 25 units per gross acre for housing.

Commercial Uses
The General Plan establishes five commercial designations to accommodate a variety of potential commercial activities. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are allowed as-of-right in all commercial areas within
the Coastal Zone.

RETAIL COMMERCIAL
The Retail Commercial (RC) designation is intended
for retail, restaurant, and service uses, typically in
single-or two-story buildings within shopping centers or on sites in the Highway 1 corridor. New development will be pedestrian-oriented. Offices may be located above the ground floor. The maximum FAR
is 1.0 FAR. Buildout is calculated with an FAR of

0.25. OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
The Office/Commercial (OC) designation permits
offices as well as retail and service uses in buildings of two to three stories. The maximum FAR is 1.5;
buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.

SERVICE COMMERCIAL
The Service Commercial (SC) designation is for
industrial and heavy commercial uses, such as auto
repair, equipment rental, storage, and materials salvage. The maximum FAR is 0.6; buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.25.

VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
The Visitor-Serving Commercial (VC) designation is
intended to foster and protect areas that attract and
cater to visitors, including hotels or a visitor attraction, such as an interpretive center or conference center, restaurants, retail and services, commercial recreation, or other compatible uses. The maximum FAR is 1.5.

Buildout is calculated with an FAR of 0.35.

LOW-INTENSITY VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
The Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial
(LIVC) designation allows uses that create public access to the coastal setting and are adaptable to changing environmental conditions: campgrounds,
rustic lodging, concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites, and similar uses. Existing permitted businesses that do not conform to the description of
LIVC may remain until voluntarily redeveloped by
the property owner or abandonment of the use has
occurred pursuant to the nonconforming use zoning
provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code (cessation
of the use for 12 months, under current zoning provisions). In these areas, the designation indicates the long-term goal of transition to recreation-oriented
land uses. Development may occur at up to 0.20
FAR, but must have an overall very low-intensity
character on sites of more than one acre. Buildout
is assumed at 0.05 FAR, recognizing the large land
areas and minimal building expected to support recreational uses.

Public and Community Uses
Designations for public uses such as schools, civic buildings, utilities, and public parking areas are designated on the Land Use Diagram, and summarized below. Public
park land is covered separately in the following section.

PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC
The Public and Semi-Public (PSP) designation indicates public or private schools, libraries, police and fire stations, and other civic and community uses.

In the case that public facilities are converted or sold

11.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-10 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
for new uses, Plan land use designations shall be
updated. If a public school is discontinued, any proposed new use should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The maximum FAR in this district is 1.0. Buildout is assumed at 0.35 FAR.

BEACH AND COMMUTER PARKING
The Beach and Commuter Parking (BCP) designation
applies to areas where the priority use is public parking to serve beach visitors and/or transit users. Sites are located adjacent to Pacifica State Beach and at Crespi Drive and Highway 1. Beach parking at the City’s Beach Boulevard
property serving Pacifica Pier and Sharp Park should be conserved as part of development of that site.

UTILITIES
The Utilities (U) designation indicates the location
of water tanks communications facilities including
cellular facilities, and other utilities serving the City.

The maximum FAR in this designation is 1.0.

Table 4-1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Land Use1
Residential Density
(gross units per acre): Range2,3
Non-Residential Intensity
(FAR): Maximum4
Residential
TOSR Transitional Open Space/Residential Up to 0.1
ROSA Open Space/Agriculture/Residential Up to 0.2
VLDR Very Low Density Residential 0.2 to 2
LDR Low Density Residential 3 to 9
MDR Medium Density Residential 10 to 15
HDR High Density Residential 16 to 215
Mixed Use
CRMU Coastal Residential Mixed Use 10 to 15 0.5
MUN Mixed Use Neighborhood 16 to 265 1.0
MUC Mixed Use Center Up to 50 2.5
Commercial
RC Retail Commercial 1.0
OC Office/Commercial 1.5
SC Service Commercial 0.6
VC Visitor-Serving Commercial 3.0
LIVC Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial 0.2
Public and Community Uses
PSP Public and Semi-Public 1.0
U Utilities 1.0
BCP Beach and Commuter Parking –
Parks and Open Space and Urban Reserve
P Park
C Conservation
UR Urban Reserve

1. All land use designationsdesignation are shown except those in the Parks and Open Space category. No development is projected in these areas.

2. Density ranges are rounded to the nearest whole number, except where less than 1 unit per acre. Allowances for increased density under the Density Bonus ProgramProgram may affect the maximum density allowed in certain land use designationsdesignations.

3. For mixed use designations, the following maximum total FAR, including both residential and non-residential uses, is established:

CRMU: 1.0 FAR maximum; MUN: 2.0 FAR maximum; MUC: 2.5 FAR maximum

4. For conforming lots smaller than 5,000 sf in the HDR, MUN, and MUC designations, the density range of the tier be-low applies. For example, an MUC site less than 5,000 sf would have a density comparative to MUN (16-26 du/ac); an HDR site less than 5,000 sf would have a density comparative to MDR (10-15 du/ac). Parcels less than 5,000 sf may merge and quality for the allowable density range.

5. Sites of 0.5 acres or more in size may develop up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.

Source: City of Pacifica, Dyett & Bhatia, 20121

11.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-11
Parks and Open Space
The Planning Area is defined by its extensive open
space system, and additional land is designated for
conservation or ridgeline protection. These categories
are detailed below.

PARK
The Park (P) designation is applied to public land
either now developed for active recreation use or
intended for future recreation development. The designation applies to city parks as well as to park or open space whose primary character is undeveloped
and natural, or that is managed for use by residents
of the larger region and beyond. The City does not
have permitting authority on lands owned by other
public agencies.

CONSERVATION
The Conservation (C) designation applies to publicly-owned or privately-owned open areas not intended for development. These areas may include:
• Watershed lands;
• Sandy beach areas;
• Land which is physically unsuitable for development due to geotechnical hazards, excessive steepness, wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas (ESHA) or other environmental
constraints, or lies within stream channels;
• Areas to remain undeveloped as a result of density transfer or clustered development, or covered by open space, recreational or scenic easements;
• Open areas providing a physical and visual buffer
between developed or open areas; and
• Open space required as mitigation for environmental impacts.

Urban Reserve
The Urban Reserve (UR) designation is created
to apply to private lands outside of City limits but
within the Planning Area. The City does not have
permitting authority in this area. The Pacifica General Plan intends for agriculture and residential development with a minimum site area of 10 acres
per unit to be the predominant uses on land designated Urban Reserve. Existing legal lots less than 10 acres in area shall be allowed to develop one dwelling
unit consistent with all other applicable zoning and
development standards.

Sites within the Urban Reserve land designation that
are annexed into the City of Pacifica should receive
a land use designation consistent with the applicable
density prior to annexation. For sites larger than 50
acres, the City should work with San Mateo County
to ensure that subdivision and development be considered in the context of a Plan Update.

Coastal Development
The General Plan and LCLUP aim to ensure that
the goals of the California Coastal Act are furthered
by land use actions and policies that affect land
within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California
Coastal Commission.

The City’s zoning code features a Coastal Zone (CZ)
Combining District, with development regulations
based on Coastal Act goals. These include the provision of public access to the shoreline and recreational opportunities, the protection and enhancement of the coastal environment, and the prioritization
of coastal-dependent and visitor-serving uses. The
Coastal Zone requirements supplement the underlying zoning regulations on all property subject to the LCLUP. Following adoption of the General Plan and
LCLUP, the CZ District will be updated to be consistent with the new guidance provided here.

General Plan and LCLUP Policies that promote visitor-oriented development are in Chapter 2. Policies to

11.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-12 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Pac i c
O cea n
400
300
200
100
100
500
600
700
400
500 300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
600
400
300
200
100 500
600
700
200
300
400
500
600
700 800
900 1000
1100
1200
100
100
200
200
300
100
300
100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
400500
600
700
800
900 1000
1100
1200
300
800
200
900
800
700
600 500
700
600
500
300
400 300
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
200
100
400 300
200
100
500
600
700
200
100
800 900
1000
1100
1100
1000
900
800
600
700
500
1100
1000
700600
800
700
600 500
400
300
400 300 500 600
700
800
300
200
300
400
500
600
200
400
300
200
100
400
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
300
200
300
200
300
400 500 600
700
800
900
100
200
300
400
300
400
400 300 200
100
500
100
200
300
400
500
100 200300
400
500
900
1220
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e
T u n n e l
Figure 4-4:

Hillside Preservation
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 Hillside Preservation
District (HPD)Boundary
Existing HPD Parcels
HPD Parcels to be Added
HPD Parcels to be Removed
Prominent Ridgelines
Parks and Open Space
Conservation
City Limits
Planning Area
Source: City of Pacica, 2019; San Mateo
County, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2019.

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

GLENCOURT

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTE MLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

DVLB HCAEB

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA D
A
R

LICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD
ROSI

ADOBE RD
TA RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Pacica
Pier
M i lagra R i d g e ( G GNRA )
Sha rp Par k
G ol f C ours e
Mor i Po i n t
(G GN R A )
Sha r p Pa r k
S w e e ne y
R i d g e
( G GNRA )
San Pe d ro Val l e y
Cou n ty Par k
Pedro Point
Headlands
(GGNRA)
Sharp
Park
Beach
Rockaway
Beach
Pacica
State Beach
Northern
Coastal
Blu
s
(GGNRA)
P e n i nsul a
Wat e rshe d
(SFPUC )
Edgemar
Park
Figure 4-4: Hillside Preservation

11.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-13
protect scenic resources are in Chapter 3. Provisions
for public shoreline access and recreation are provided in Chapter 6. Policies to protect water quality, sensitive habitats, and natural resources are in Chapter 7. Policies to protect against seismic hazards, erosion and flooding, and other natural hazards are in Chapter 8. This chapter covers how this Plan supports Coastal Act priorities for development.

Land Use Strategies to Protect
Natural and Scenic Resources
Hillside Preservation District
The Hillside Preservation District (HPD) covers many of the city’s ridges and open spaces, as an “overlay” district on top of base zoning and in most
cases requires rezoning to the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district as part of the development review process. The HPD aims to ensure that development of highly sensitive slopes does not endanger the public or harm the environmental or scenic values of the site, and to encourage high-quality site
planning and design that enhances the beauty of the
landscape. Figure 4-4 shows Pacifica’s existing Hillside Preservation District, and identifies the general area where site status should be reviewed based on
slope stability (including sites in the HPD, and sites
to be added to the HPD). Other sites may also be
reviewed. Development regulations for hillsides are
covered in Chapter 3 as they pertain to community
design and in Chapter 8 as they pertain to safety.

Transfer of Residential Development Rights
Transfer of development rights (TDR) is established to
provide a mechanism to relocate potential residential
development from areas where environmental or land
use impacts could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development, and to preserve significant open space resources. Owners of environmentally sensitive sites may transfer residential development rights to other sites where higher-density development can be
supported, or from one part of a site to another. As in the Hillside Preservation District, clustered housing is encouraged to preserve the most sensitive portions of a site. The zoning code identifies eligible “sending areas” New development along the coast is required to provide public access, unless the City determines public access would pose safety issues or there is adequate access nearby (top). Clustered development is encouraged to preserve open space areas and protect sensitive hillsides (middle). The development of second units, compatible with their neighborhood context, is facillitated (bottom).

11.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-14 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
and Park Pacica
East Linda Mar
Highlands
Pacic
Westview,
Fairmont
Pacic Manor
East Edgemar,
Pacic Manor
West Edgemar,
West
Fairmont
and Gypsy Hall
East Sharp Park,
Milagra Ridge,
Park
Sharp
West
and Mori Point
West Fairway Park,
Sharp Park GC,
and Sweeney Ridge
East Fairway Park,
Sharp Park,
Shelter Cove
and
Pedro Point
West Linda Mar
Headlands
Quarry, and
Rockaway Beach,
and Fassler
Rockaway,
Vallemar,
Beach
State
Pacica
F Blus
Coastal
Northern
Bowl Site
Manor
Paci
c
Road
Monterey
Upper
Canyon
Milagra
Palmetto
Northern
Industrial
Specific Plan Area
Sharp Park
School
High
Oceana
Hill
Gypsy
Golf Course
Sharp Park
Hillside
East Fairway
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Beach
Rockaway
Highway 1
East Side
Headlands
Rockaway
Rockaway
Cattle Hill
Fassler Ridge Crespi Dr
Lamer Center
Shopping
Pedro Point
Center
Shopping
Linda Mar Avenue Site
San Pedro
Undeveloped
Ranch
Shamrock Site
Marsh
Mid
Hillsides
Park Paci
ca
Linda Mar &
Hillsides
Park Paci
ca
Linda Mar &
Hillsides
Park Paci
ca
Linda Mar &
Stables
Paci
ca
Park
Subarea
Specic Sites
City Limits
Planning Area
Specic Sites
Subareas &
Figure 4-5:

O cea n
Pa cific
0 1/4 1/2 1
MILES
2 County, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Source: City of Pacica, 2020; San Mateo
D e v i l ’ s S l i d e T u n n e l

GAT EWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

MONTEREY RD

OLD COAST HWY

MANOR DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTEMLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

OCEANA BLVD

PALOMA AVE

TALBOT AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD

MOANA WAY

LUNDY WAY

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

DVLB HCAEB

REINA DEL MAR AVE

ROCKA WAY BEACH AVE

TERRANOVA BLVD

EVERGLADES DR

ODDSTAD BLVD

CRESPI DR

LERIDA WAY

CRESPI DR

SEVILLE DR

MANZANITA DR

ALICANTE
LIN
DR

DA MAR BLVD

ROSITA RD

ADOBE RD

PERALTA RD

DE SOLO

LINDA MAR BLVD

FASSLER AVE

PARK LINCOLN

GRAND AVE

MILAGRA DR

HICKEY BLVD

ESPLANADE AVE

MANOR DR

ROBERTS RD

SHARP PARK RD

SEASIDE DR

CLARENDON RD
Figure 4-5: Sub-Areas
and Specific Sites

11.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-15
Pier
Pacica
Undercrossing
Overcrossing
Overcrossing
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
Milagra Ridge Trail
Talbot Road Trail
Coastal Trail

GATEWAY DR

FIRECREST AVE

INVERNESS DR

SKYLINE BLVD

MONTEREY RD

P A OTTE MLA VE

EDGEMAR DR

MILLER AVE

AVALON DR

PALOMA AVE

BEACH BLVD

SKYLINE BLVD

MOANA WAY

MANOR DR

PALMETTO AVE

MONTEREY RD

H CI KEY BLVD

SHARP PARK RD

WINWOOD AVE

ESPLANADE AVE

CLARENDON RD
(GGNRA)
Blu
s
Coastal
Northern Bowl
Center
Shopping
Manor
Pacic
Road
Monterey
Upper
Canyon
Milagra
Palmetto
Northern
Industrial
School
High
Oceana
Plan
Specic
Sharp Park
Hill
Gypsy
Fish
West Park
Fairmont
Park
Edgemar
Catholic School
Good Shepherd
School
Middle
Lacy
Ingrid B.

Hall
City
Promenade
Course
Golf
Park
Sharp
E.S.

Shore
Ocean
Apts.

Lands End
RV Park
Francisco
San
School Site
Fairmont
Highlands
Pacic
Westview,
Pacic Manor
Pacic Manor East Edgemar,
West Edgemar,
and Gypsy Hall
East Sharp Park,
Milagra Ridge,
Park
Sharp
West
Fairmont
West
Fairmont
keyed to Table X-X
Coastal Access Points are
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
Planning Area
City Limits
Specic Sites
Subareas
Existing trailhead
On-street trail
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail
Park Opportunity Site
View Corridor
Coastal Access Points
(Blu
top/View) 8
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points 7
Transportation Corridor
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Public and Semi-Public
Low Intensity VisitorServing Commercial
Service Commercial
O
ce/Commercial
Retail Commercial
(up to 50 units/acre)
Mixed Use Center
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -21 units/acre)*
High Density Residential
(10 -15 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(3 -9 units/acre)
Low Density Residential
(0.2 -2.0 units/acre)
Very Low Density Residential
(up to 0.2 units/acre)
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential
MILES
0 1/4 1/2 1
Pacica, North
Figure 4-6:

Figure 4-6: Pacifica, North

11.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-16 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
and “receiving areas.” TDR may also be used to shift
development within a site which has more than one
zoning or General Plan designation, or between commonly owned parcels which have more than one zoning or General Plan designation and are planned as a unit.

The City should update its TDR regulations to encourage broader use by property owners.

Land Use Programs to Facilitate
Housing
The City provides special regulations and incentives to facilitate development of housing affordable to moderate- and low-income households while preserving neighborhood character. These programs help to bring
about concentrated development in transit-supportive
areas, in keeping with Sections 30250 and 30252 of the
Coastal Act and other State law.

Density Bonus
Developments providing rental units, affordable
housing, or housing for elderly or disabled persons
may exceed the maximum density allowed by the
General Plan or zoning, consistent with State Density Bonus law.

Below Market Rate Program
In Pacifica, residential developments or subdivisions
of eight or more units must set aside at least 15 percent of units as Below Market Rate housing, with affordability provisions in place for at least 45 or 55 years for for-sale units and rental units, respectively.

With approval from the Planning Commission,
developers may meet the program goals by building
units off-site, dedicating land to the City, or paying
into the City’s housing in-lieu fund.

Accessory Residential Units
Accessory dwelling units may be built in areas zoned
to allow residential uses pursuant to State law. The
City’s zoning code provides additional standards
depending on ADU type: detached, attached, created within existing floor area, and multi-family.

Off-street parking is not required for most ADUs,
except certain ADUs located within a mapped
coastal access parking area within the Coastal Zone.

Sub-Areas and Specific Sites
Figure 4-5 shows 15 sub-areas. Sub-areas may be
referred to as neighborhoods at times. The “sub-area”
designation is not intended to correspond with any
jurisdictional boundaries, but to help readers understand the way the General Plan affects Pacifica’s distinct geographic areas. Figure 4-5 also identifies specific sites that are the subject of General Plan policies.

This chapter contains land use policies for specific
sites. Policies on open space, parks and coastal access are in Chapter 6. Policies on environmental resources
are in Chapter 7, with visual resources covered in
Chapter 3. Policies on hazards are in Chapter 8.

Figure 4-5 also serves as a key map for the four maps
that follow, showing sub-areas and specific sites at a
larger scale. These maps show General Plan land use
at the parcel level, as well as coastal access points;
park opportunity sites; coastal view corridors; trails
and proposed trail improvements. The area maps, and
the sub-area descriptions below, are intended to demonstrate how various aspects of the General Plan— including land use, parks and recreation facilities,
coastal access, and environmental resources and hazards—work together in the more localized context.

The maps do not show different information than is
contained in other General Plan maps.

Northern Pacifica
Figure 4-6 covers all of Pacifica north of Sharp Park,
including the following sub-areas or neighborhoods:
• Fairmont West; West Edgemar-Pacific Manor;
and West Sharp Park in the Coastal Zone;
• Fairmont; Westview-Pacific Highlands; East
Edgemar-Pacific Manor; and East Sharp Park,
east of SR 1.

This sub-area includes Palmetto Avenue, the Pacifica
Pier and Promenade, the Pacific Manor shopping area,
the northern coastal bluffs, Oceana High School,
Milagra Ridge and Gypsy Hill. The summaries below
begin with the three coastal sub-areas, followed by the four inland sub-areas.

11.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-17
Fairmont West
Fairmont West is a small residential area in northwestern Pacifica between Highway 1 and the Pacific Ocean, extending from Daly City along the Northern
Coastal Bluffs. It is separated from inland neighborhoods by the highway and a significant grade change.

Fairmont West is composed mainly of single-family houses, with a condominium development and a neighborhood park. Palmetto Avenue is Fairmont
West’s principal roadway, and provides open views of
the Pacific Ocean. The National Park Service owns
approximately 14 acres of land on the northern coastal
bluffs along the west side of Palmetto Avenue as part
of the GGNRA.

Given the extraordinary natural and scenic value, the
interest of public access, and the potential erosion hazards, undeveloped land on the northern coastal bluffs is designated Residential/Open Space/Agriculture,
and identified as a priority for permanent conservation. Sensitive, clustered development could occur on the east side of Palmetto.

GGNRA plans to continue to manage its land along
the northern coastal bluffs as a “natural zone” emphasizing protection of habitat and natural coastal processes. No formal beach access exists or is planned.

Undeveloped land west of Palmetto Avenue contains
areas of Coastal bluff scrub, which is considered a special status community of high value, important for stabilizing sand dunes. The entire bluff-top area is currently undeveloped and offers an open, highly scenic view of the entire length of Pacifica’s coastline.

West Edgemar-Pacific Manor
West Edgemar-Pacific Manor is an established coastal
neighborhood extending from north of the Land’s
End Apartments to south of the San Francisco RV
Park between Highway 1 and the ocean. The area is
centered on the Pacific Manor shopping center. Multifamily development accounts for over 90 percent of the area’s approximately 870 housing units. West
Edgemar-Pacific Manor’s residential areas have the
highest density in Pacifica.

The “Bowl” site (top) could be a good candidate for clustered housing to avoid potential hazards. Multi-family development accounts for over West Edgemar-Pacific Manor Pacifica’s housing (middle). The service commercial and industrial businesses on the west side of northern Palmetto (bottom) may transition over time toward recreation.

11.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-18 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
As envisioned by the Plan, redevelopment and/or
shopping center improvements will enhance the area’s
walkability, help integrate the commercial center
with its coastal setting, and improve the area’s visual appeal. The City-owned bluff-top land along the west
side of Esplanade Avenue may present an opportunity
to develop a small park, if this can be done without
aggravating slope instability. Esplanade Avenue is also identified as a future bluff-top coastal access point,
which may be achieved by redesigning the Esplanade
right-of-way to enhance views and pedestrian access.

Progressive coastal erosion has led to demolition of
residential structures in the 300- and 500-blocks of
Esplanade Avenue, and remains an important factor
when considering future development potential of
sites located along the bluff-top.

West Sharp Park
Sharp Park is one of Pacifica’s original beach communities. Its western and eastern portions are divided by Highway 1. The northern half of West Sharp Park
includes some of Pacifica’s only industrial and service commercial uses. The southern half of the neighborhood has a mixture of single-family and multi-family housing, with retail commercial uses prevailing along
Palmetto Avenue, and commercial and civic buildings along Francisco Boulevard. A majority of the neighborhood’s approximately 900 housing units are
in multi-family buildings. West Sharp Park includes
many of Pacifica’s community facilities, including a
branch of the San Mateo County Library, the Pacifica Resource Center, City Hall, and Council Chambers. The neighborhood features the Pacifica Pier and Beach Boulevard Promenade, and public parking for
the Pier, Promenade, and Sharp Park Beach. The General Plan will implement the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which includes this area plus the Eureka Square shopping center, and provide additional detailed information on the vision for the area regarding land uses, mobility, urban design and development standards,
utilities and public services, community facilities, the environment, and implementation.

The Plan envisions the northern area west of Palmetto
Avenue transitioning to Low-Intensity Visitor Serving
Commercial uses over time. The transition is necesThe Plan designates the large Oceana High School site for continued public use, while recognizing future potential (top). Private, undeveloped land on Gypsy Hill is designated for Residential/Open Space or Very Low Density Residential (bottom).

11.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-19
sary to account for progressive coastal erosion which
has advanced into many bluff-top sites along Palmetto
Avenue in this area. Coastal erosion is an important
factor to consider when reviewing future development
of sites located along the bluff-top.

Fairmont
The Fairmont sub-area, between Highway 1, Skyline
Boulevard and the ravine formed by the San Andreas
Fault, was primarily developed during the 1950s and
1960s. City-owned parks and greenbelts lie along the
ravine, including Fairmont Park and Imperial Park.

The predominant land use is single-family residential
on small lots, with multi-family housing around Fairmont Shopping Center, which provides convenience shopping and services.

The Plan reinforces existing development patterns,
while facilitating creation of new public open space as part of any redevelopment of the closed Fairmont Elementary school site, and new trail connections along the greenbelts and to the coast.

Westview-Pacific Highlands
Westview-Pacific Highlands is a predominantly single-family area in Pacifica’s northern hills, lying south of the ravine formed by the San Andreas fault, west
of Skyline Boulevard, and north of Milagra Canyon.

There is a small commercial center at Manor Drive
and Skyline Boulevard. Two significant residential
developments have been built recently along Skyline
Boulevard: the Skyridge development on the flank of
Milagra Ridge, and the Cypress Walk development on
the site of the former Westview School, both of which
also included public open space. Existing development
patterns in the community will be preserved under the
Plan, while steep hillsides and habitat value in Milagra Canyon will be protected.

East Edgemar-Pacific Manor
East Edgemar-Pacific Manor is relatively flat, with
hills rising up to the north, east, and south. Manor
Drive links the neighborhood to the Pacific Manor
shopping area across Highway 1, and to WestviewPacific Highlands uphill to the east. Oceana Boulevard serves as a frontage road to Highway 1, and is lined with commercial uses, Ocean Shore Elementary School, and the City’s Public Works building.

The area is composed mainly of single-family houses,
with a small amount of multi-family housing. Edgemar Park provides a small public open space for the neighborhood.

Commercial sites along Oceana are considered to have
potential to redevelop during the planning period.

The Plan designates these sites primarily for continued Retail Commercial use, reinforcing the existing pattern. The playfields at Ocean Shore Elementary School may help provide additional active open space, which
could be augmented by a small play area set aside as
part of any development in lower Milagra Canyon.

East Sharp Park, Milagra Ridge, Gypsy Hill
East Sharp Park lies in two valleys and on the small
ridge separating them. Milagra Ridge is to the north
and Gypsy Hill is to the south and east. Houses are
along streets that go up the valleys and along the small ridge, with a scattering of multi-family housing on the ridge. Oceana High School occupies a 56-acre site,
accessible to Pacifica’s most central neighborhoods
along the Highway 1 corridor. There are connections
across the highway to West Sharp Park and the ocean
at Paloma Avenue in the north and Clarendon Road
in the south, as well as a pedestrian overcrossing from Eureka Square Shopping Center.

Eureka Square, along Oceana Boulevard facing Highway 1, has the potential for new development. The Plan identifies this site, together with land facing Francisco Boulevard on the opposite side of Highway 1, as Mixed Use Center, for higher-intensity commercial
and residential development. The site’s location along
Highway 1, at the base of a hill and directly across
from the existing civic cluster, makes it well-suited
for higher-intensity development. Over the long term,
the large Oceana High School site could also support
additional development. Undeveloped land on Gypsy
Hill may also support appropriately-designed, smallscale development, which would be very low density and also be required to retain natural vegetation, limit

11.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (5210 : 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan) 4-20 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Calera
Creek
Undercrossing
Overcrossing
Proposed
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 SharpPark Trail
Mori Ridge Trail
Baquiano Trail
Coastal Trail
Coastal Trail
Farallon View Trail
Ahni Trail

CRESPI DR

REINA DEL MAR AVE AVE

CRESPI DR

FASSLER AVE

BRADFORD WAY

SHARP PARK RD
LUNDY
DR

FAIRWAY DR RIDGEWAY DR

ROCKAWAYBEACH AVE

TERRA NOVA BLVD

DESOLODR

ROBERTS RD

SEASIDE DR
Beach
Rockaway
Headlands
Rockaway
Crespi Drive
Lower
Beach
Park
Sharp
& G olf C ours e
Sharp Par k
( G GNRA )
Mori Poi n t
E.S.

Pacifica City CouncilDecember 12, 2022

Pacifica City Council
December 12, 2022