Exhibit A - 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan — Pacifica City Council, December 12, 2022

City of Pacifica

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER
PLAN
FINAL DRAFT | November ͮͬͮͮ

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.

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
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‐ͭͬ
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‐ͭ
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
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‐ͮ
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 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
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
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 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.

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐Ͱ | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL DRAFT
‐This Page Intentionally Left Blank‐
")=
!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.

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:

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.

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 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.

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
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.

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

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.

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.

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-12 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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 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.
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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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 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 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 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 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 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.

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]
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
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.

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.

CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-2 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
!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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-8 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

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).

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 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.

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 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
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.

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)
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).

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 !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.

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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 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.
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# # #
#
#
# # # #
# # ### # # # # #
# #
# # # # #
# # #
#
#
# # # # # # # # #
# # # #
# # # #
#
# #
#
# # #
#
#
# # # #
## # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # # #
#
# #
#
#
#
#
## # # # #
# # # # # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # # # #
#
#
#
# # # #
#
#
# # # #
#
#
# # # # #
# #
#
# # # #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
# # # # #
# # # # #
# # # #
#
#
#
#
# # # # # #
# # #
# #
#
#
# #
# # # # # # #
#
# # # #
# # # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-10 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-4 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-

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
CITY OF PACIFICA | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-6 | NOVEMBER 2022 | FINAL DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix B

LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

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
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.

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
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). 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).
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
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. 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).
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 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
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 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
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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). 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 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.

Cabrillo
Center
Community
Pacica
Fassler Ridge
Rockaway
Cattle Hill
Highway 1
East Side
Flats
Pad
O
ces
District
School E.S.

Station Vallemar
Plant Police Water Recycling
Center
Shopping
Linda Mar
Quarry Site
Rockaway
Hillside
East Fairway
Hill
Gypsy
and Fassler
Rockaway,
Vallemar,
& Mori Point
West Fairway Park
Golf Course,
Sharp Park
Beach
State
Pacica
Headlands
Quarry, &
Rockaway Beach,
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
Coastal Access Points are keyed to Table X-X
Subareas
Specic Sites
City Limits
Planning Area
Improved
Trailhead to be
Existing Trailhead
On-street trail
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail
View Corridor
(Blu
top/View)
Coastal Access Points 8
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points 7
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Park Opportunity Site
Transportation Corridor
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Beach/Commuter Parking
Public and Semi-Public
Serving Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorCommercial
Visitor-Serving
Service 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
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Pacica, Central
Figure 4-7:

Figure 4-7: Pacifica, Central
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-21
building footprints, and preserve large areas of open
space and support wildlife movement.

The Plan envisions a small new public open space as
part of any new development at Eureka Square, and
pedestrian improvements to create a good walking
link through the neighborhood linking the beach to
the ridgetop.

Central Pacifica
Figure 4-7 shows the central section of Pacifica. The
map includes:
• Sharp Park Golf Course, the West Fairway
Park neighborhood, Mori Point, the Rockaway
Quarry, Rockaway Beach, and the Rockaway
Headlands in the Coastal Zone;
• Sharp Park; the East Fairway Park, Vallemar, and
Rockaway neighborhoods; and Sweeney Ridge,
Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge, east of Highway 1.

This sub-area includes the Rockaway Beach district,
the Police Station, and the Shelldance Nursery (the
only location east of Highway 1 within the Coastal
Zone).

Sharp Park Golf Course, West Fairway Park,
and Mori Point
The central stretch of Pacifica’s coast includes Sharp
Park Golf Course, Mori Point, and the small singlefamily subdivision of West Fairway Park. Sharp Park Municipal Golf Course is part of a land bequest made
to the City and County of San Francisco early in the
20th Century on the condition that the land be used
for public recreation. West Fairway Park is a small single-family residential subdivision. On the south, the neighborhood meets the base of undeveloped Mori
Point, managed as part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

The Plan designates Sharp Park Golf Course and
Mori Point as regional park land. Current characteristics may be maintained, and environmental restoration will be a priority. The West Fairway Park neighHabitat restoration of the Laguna Salada area is planned, following extensive habitat improvements at neighboring Horse Stable Pond and Mori Point (top). The General Plan envisions the Rockaway Beach district growing into a more distinct and high-profile visitor destination (middle). The General Plan designates most of Fassler Ridge (bottom) as Residential/Open Space to conserve its open space character.
4-22 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
borhood’s existing land use is reinforced by the Plan’s land use designations.

Sharp Park Beach is open to the public between the
Pier and Mori Point, while Sharp Park Golf Course
provides a unique recreational asset. Mori Point is a
spectacular section of the GGNRA. The General Plan
proposes trail improvements and critical new trail
segments that would link the coastal trails with the
inland ridges. This segment of the Pacifica coastline
includes view corridors from Highway 1 into Sharp
Park Golf Course and toward Mori Point and Mori
Ridge that will be preserved.

Rockaway Beach, Quarry, and Headlands
Rockaway Beach is a small, pedestrian-oriented area
with shops, restaurants, and lodging and a small
beach, with parking and other amenities. The vacant
Quarry site occupies about 94 acres west of High-way
1 and south of Mori Point. About 30 acres of the site
are on slopes of 35 percent or steeper. The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant, at the north end of the former
quarry, releases treated wastewater into Calera Creek,
which has a naturalized channel, a restored riparian
corridor, and a paved walking and cycling path. The
Headlands is a rocky promontory separating Rockaway Beach and Pacifica State Beach, and is crossed by a scenic trail.

The Quarry site is Pacifica’s most prominent potential
development site. Prior to any future development,
the property owner must complete reclamation of
the former quarry pursuant to the State Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Pacifica Municipal Code. Approximately half of the site, including the upland areas and the Calera Creek riparian corridor, is designated for Conservation. This area will remain open space, with trail improvements connecting Mori Point with Rockaway Beach. The Flats and the Pad overlooking Rockaway Beach are designated
for Visitor-Serving Commercial development, supporting such potential uses as a resort hotel, boutique hotels, visitor attractions, and retail uses integrated with the Rockaway Beach district. Redevelopment
of the Quarry site could expand this visitor-oriented
area. Any development of the Quarry site will require
detailed evaluation of biological re-sources to ensure
that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; as a result, the footprint of development could be smaller
than the area designated. While housing may be proposed as part of a plan for the site, Ordinance No. 391 provides that rezoning to allow residential uses may
occur only if approved by a vote of the electorate. Figure 4-4 indicates removal of the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay from the Flats portion of the site, which would also require approval by a vote
of the electorate. Development in the Quarry Flats
should include new public open space.

The existing Rockaway Beach district also offers
opportunities for infill and redevelopment, subject
to an appropriate assessment of potential coastal hazards and vulnerabilities. The General Plan envisions the Rockaway Beach district growing into a more distinct and high-profile visitor destination, with strong links to the natural setting of beaches, headlands, and ridges.

The General Plan proposes new coastal trail segments,
and new trails would link the coastal trails with the
inland ridges. Improvements to Highway 1 should
ease travel, accommodate vehicles as well as bikes and
pedestrians, and improve access into the Rockaway
Beach district. Coastal views from Highway 1 toward
Mori Point, Cattle Hill, and the Rockaway Headlands
are important in establishing the identity of this area and Pacifica as a whole. The United States Geological Survey established the place name “Aramai Point” for the Rockaway Headlands in 2021 in recognition of
the indigenous peoples that occupied the area prior to
European settlement.

Sharp Park, East Fairway Park, and Sweeney
Ridge
Sharp Park east of Highway 1 includes a portion of
the Golf Course, and is primarily undeveloped at its
higher elevations. Land in the vicinity of the former
rifle range in Sharp Park could potentially support
sports fields for school and community use. Sweeney
Ridge features over 1,000 acres of preserved regional
open space in the GGNRA, with the protected San
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-23
21 22
23 24 25 26
27 Devil’s Slide Trail
San Pedro Creek
Old San Pedro MountianRd
Coastal Trail
Pedro Point Trail
Rosita Road Trail
DEVIL’S SLIDE TUNNEL

SAN PEDRO AVE
ROSITA
RD

ROBERTS
RD

GRAND AVE

FASSLER AVE

LINDA MAR BLVD
DESOLO
DR

PERALTA RD

ADOBE RD

LINDA MAR BLVD

ALICANTE DR

MANZANITA DR

SEVILLE DR

CRESPI DR

CRESPI DR
Fassler Ridge
Crespi Dr
Lower
San Pedro Ave Site
Undeveloped
Center
Shopping
Pedro Point
Center
Shopping
Linda Mar
Ranch
Shamrock
Hillsides
& Park Pacica Linda Mar
Park
Skate Center
Community
Pacica
E.S.

Cabrillo
Site
Park-and-Ride
Linda Mar
Pacic Bay
Christian
School
(GGNRA)
Headlands
Pedro Point
State Beach
Pacica
Adobe
Sanchez
School
Linda Mar
Art Center
Sanchez Park/
Pedro
Point
& Shelter
Cove
Pacica
State Beach
West Linda Mar
at up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
* Sites 0.5 acres or more may be developed
keyed to Table X-X
Coastal Access Points are
Planning Area
City Limits
Specic Sites
Subareas
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Park Opportunity Site
Proposed Trailhead
Existing Trailhead
On-street trail
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail
View Corridor
(Blu
top/View)
Coastal Access Points 8
(Beach)
Coastal Access Points 7
Transportation Corridor
Urban Reserve
Sandy Beach
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Beach/Commuter Parking
Public and Semi-Public
Serving Commercial
Low Intensity VisitorVisitor-Serving Commercial
Service Commercial
Retail Commercial
(up to 50 units/acre)
Mixed Use Center
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Coastal Residential Mixed Use
(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
(up to 0.1 units/acre) Transitional Open Space/Residential 0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Pacica, Southwest
Figure 4-8:

Figure 4-8: Pacifica, Southwest
4-24 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Francisco watershed to the east. Mori Ridge descends
toward the coast, forming the southern boundary of
this sub-area. The small East Fairway Park subdivision is located between Mori Ridge and Sharp Park and Fairway Park contains several baseball fields and
a small playground. An undeveloped site along Highway 1 is designated for Low Density Residential development, while a larger hillside property at the east edge of the neighborhood is designated Open Space/
Agriculture/Residential.

Mori Ridge, at the southern edge of this sub-area, is
part of GGNRA. The Pacifica General Plan supports
the creation of a nucleus of GGNRA park activities
at Shelldance Nursery, and proposes a trail connection over Highway 1 connecting Mori Point with the proposed park visitors’ center, and the trail up Mori
Ridge to the Bay Area Ridge Trail system.

Vallemar, Rockaway, and Fassler
The Vallemar neighborhood follows Reina del Mar
Avenue up the narrow Calera Creek valley. Around
the intersection of Reina del Mar and Highway 1, there
is a small commercial area as well as Vallemar School,
the Pacifica School District offices, and the police station. Mori Ridge, Sweeney Ridge, and upper Cattle Hill are mostly protected open space, and afford recreational opportunities. Undeveloped land on the upper slopes of the valley are designated primarily for Open
Space/Agriculture/Residential to ensure that new
development is minimal, in recognition of environmental constraints and limited access.

Cattle Hill is the next prominent ridgeline south of
Mori Ridge, between the Vallemar and Rockaway
valleys. Much of the ridge is protected as permanent open space. The western face of Cattle Hill is privately-owned, and some development may occur
here in the future. The ridge is designated as Open
Space/Agriculture/Residential to ensure that new
development is appropriate to the rugged conditions
and high scenic value of the ridge. The General Plan
also proposes a public trail up Cattle Hill, providing
a connection between Rockaway Beach and Sweeney Ridge, requiring an easement or dedicated public access. Potential development sites along Highway 1 at
the base of the hill may be well-suited to mixed-use
residential and commercial uses. Commercial development should feature attractive frontage treatment along the highway and should consider ways to mitigate traffic impacts to Highway 1.

The Rockaway neighborhood ascends from Highway 1 along Rockaway Beach Avenue up another narrow valley. There are many vacant residential lots
on mapped rights-of-way on the upper slopes of the
Rockaway valley to the north and south, but topography makes development challenging. There is a very The scenic Pedro Point neighborhood
overlooks Pacifica State Beach.
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-25
small commercial area where Rockaway Beach Avenue
meets Highway 1.

Fassler Avenue traverses a ridge separating Rockaway
from the much broader San Pedro Valley to the south.

Fassler Ridge is mainly in private ownership and presents potential development opportunities overlooking Pacifica State Beach and Rockaway Beach. The General Plan designates most of the ridge as Open Space/ Agriculture/Residential to conserve its highly-visible
open space character. A new trail is proposed that
would connect the site of the historic Portola camp
on Crespi Drive—and Pacifica State Beach—with the
San Francisco Bay Discovery Site on Sweeney Ridge.

Southwestern Pacifica
Figure 4-8 shows the southwestern part of the Planning Area, including:
• Pacifica State Beach, Shelter Cove, and the Pedro
Point neighborhood in the Coastal Zone;
• The West Linda Mar neighborhood and areas
outside City limits, east of Highway 1.

Pacifica State Beach
Pacifica State Beach, also known as Linda Mar Beach,
is a long sandy beach on a small bay formed by the
Rockaway Headlands and Pedro Point. Pacifica State
Beach is an outstanding recreational asset for the City and attracts over one million visitors annually from
the region and beyond for its surfing, beach environment and scenery in close proximity to San Francisco.

Recent restoration work and improvements to parking and access has helped to ensure that the beach will remain a popular natural environment for years
to come. Views from Highway 1 toward the crescent
sweep of Pacifica State Beach, the Headlands, and
Pedro Point are a defining element for Pacifica, and
will be preserved across the protected park land.

Pacifica State Beach supports primarily wintering
and/or migrating Western snowy plovers, a federally
threatened bird species. The beach must continue to
be managed to ensure that recreational use does not
interfere with the species’ habitat requirements. Steelhead trout from the Central California Coast Ecologically Significant Unit are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Steelhead are
known to spawn in several parts of San Pedro Creek,
and the City will continue to support the preservation
of viable steelhead migration.

Pedro Point and Shelter Cove
The Pedro Point neighborhood sits on the slope
of the promontory that marks Pacifica’s southern
boundary. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family houses climbing up the slope, with some commercial development, including a small shopping center, on the flat land near the beach. The neighborhood is separated from the coastline by the
berm of the former Ocean Shore Railroad. Pedro
Point abuts City-, County-, and State-owned land at
the Point’s higher elevations to the south. This land is within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s
legislative boundary, and could be included in the
park in the future. The western tip of Pedro Point
descends to Shelter Cove, where another cluster of
houses exists on a single 17-acre parcel. Land access
to Shelter Cove has been limited to steep pedestrian
trails since the former roadway to the area washed
out in the 1980s.

The Plan reinforces existing land use patterns for all
developed parts of the sub-area. There is potential for Pedro Point shopping center and adjacent parcels to
accommodate some new retail development, which
could provide local convenience shopping as well as
visitor-oriented businesses. The Plan retains flexibility for any future development on the vacant site west of the shopping center, identified as the Undeveloped
San Pedro Avenue Site, which could have residential
and small-scale commercial and visitor-oriented uses.

Development of the site will require detailed evaluation of coastal hazards/vulnerabilities and biological resources to ensure that any sensitive habitat and wetlands that may exist on the site are protected;
4-26 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Middle Fork San Pedro Creek
Old San PedroMtnRd
Weller Ranch Trail
Montara Mountain Trail
Rosita Road Trail
ail
San Pedro Creek

ROSITA RD

AP RK PACIFIC A AVELINCOLN BLVD LINDA MAR BLVD

ALICANTE DR

MANZANITA DR

SEVILLE DR
LERIDA
WAY

CRESPI DR

ODDSTAD
BLVD

EVERGLADES
DR

TERRANOVA
BLVD
County Par k
Sa n P e d r o Vall e y
Ranch
Millwood
E.S.

Ortega
Mall
Park
Library
Sanchez
Site School
Oddstad
E.S.

Ortega
Park
Oddstad
Art Center
Sanchez Park/
Adobe
Sanchez
High School
Terra Nova
Hillsides
Park Pacica Linda Mar &
Stables
Pacica
Park
Hillsides
Park Pacica
Linda Mar &
Hillsides
Park Pacica
Linda Mar &
Fassler Ridge
Pacic Bay
Christian
School
West Linda Mar
and Park Pacica
East Linda Mar
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
Opportunity
Park Improvement
Park Opportunity Site
Existing Trailhead
On-street trail
Existing Trail
Urban Reserve
Conservation
Park
Utilities
Public and Semi-Public
Retail Commercial
(16 -26 units/acre)*
Mixed Use Neighborhood
(16 -21 units/acre)*
High 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
(up to 0.1 units/acre)
Transitional Open Space/Residential
0 1/4 1/2
MILES
1 Pacica, Southeast
Figure 4-9:

Figure 4-9: Pacifica, Southeast
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-27
thus, the footprint of development could be smaller
than the area designated. Future development should
include a small park and access to the berm and the
beach beyond. Completion of the Devils Slide Tunnel project has provided the opportunity to create a new trailhead and trails through open space land on
the headlands.

West Linda Mar
The West Linda Mar sub-area is in the lower portion
of the San Pedro Creek Valley and on the hillsides to
the north. The area is almost entirely developed with
single-family houses. West Linda Mar has two access
points to Highway 1, at Crespi Drive and Linda Mar
Boulevard. Linda Mar Shopping Center, Pacifica’s
largest, is at the junction of Linda Mar Boulevard
and Highway 1. Public parking for beach visitors and
commuters is provided in both areas, and served by
Samtrans buses. A variety of uses, including a hotel,
multi-family housing, service commercial and small
retail centers, Cabrillo Elementary School, the Pacifica Community Center, including Senior Services, and a
post office, are clustered along lower Crespi Drive. The Crespi Business Center is the City’s only light-industrial business park and provides a unique combination of local employment and small business opportunities for residents. A smaller commercial/office area is located at the corner of Linda Mar Boulevard and
Adobe Drive. The area includes the Sanchez Adobe,
the oldest structure in San Mateo County and a designated historic resource. Pacific Bay Christian School (formerly Alma Heights Christian Academy) is to the
east along Linda Mar Boulevard. Oddstad Park is a
large, mostly wooded park serving the area.

The General Plan reinforces existing residential land
use patterns in West Linda Mar. It proposes new
opportunities for mixed-use development along lower
Crespi Drive and at the Linda Mar Park-and-Ride site.

Redevelopment at these locations can help Pacifica
provide a greater diversity of housing types in close
proximity to transit, public amenities, and walkable
commercial areas.

The General Plan designates most of Fassler Ridge (top) as Residential/Open Space. New development at Park Mall (middle) could include a mix of retail and residential uses. Steep land in Park Pacifica (bottom) is designated either as greenbelt or for Residential/Open Space to ensure slope stability and visual quality. 4-28 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
San Pedro Creek travels through the heart of the
neighborhood. Protection and enhancement of the
riparian stream corridor must be a continued priority. The General Plan envisions on-street trails along the former San Pedro Terrace Road and Rosita Road,
providing a good walking route through valley neighborhoods between Pacifica State Beach and San Pedro Valley County Park.

Southeastern Pacifica
Figure 4-9 shows the East Linda Mar and Park Pacifica neighborhoods in the southeastern part of the Planning Area. The map includes Park Mall, Terra
Nova High School, San Pedro Valley County Park,
Oddstad Park, and a section of Sweeney Ridge.

East Linda Mar and Park Pacifica
East Linda Mar includes the portion of the San
Pedro Valley east of Pacific Bay Christian School and
Oddstad Park, and on the southern slope of Fassler
Ridge. Park Pacifica, developed mostly in the 1970s,
lies in the “back of the valley” and the hilly terrain
rising up to Sweeney Ridge. In the north, the area
is characterized by winding residential streets and
greenbelts. The valley portion includes Sanchez Park,
the Pacifica Center for the Arts, and one of Pacifica’s two fire stations. Some housing exists south of San
Pedro Creek, along with undeveloped or agricultural
land where a limited amount of residential development may be possible. The area is served by the Park Mall shopping center on Terra Nova Boulevard, and
by the adjacent Sanchez branch library and Ortega
Elementary School.

Park Pacifica lies in a secluded valley and its slopes
extend to the northeast of Linda Mar Boulevard
along Oddstad Boulevard. As in Linda Mar, the
predominant land use is low density residential,
interspersed with greenbelts. Multi-family housing
is developed along Terra Nova and Oddstad Boulevards, including senior housing. Park Pacifica is also home to Terra Nova High School. The neighborhood is hemmed in by topography and protected open space on Sweeney Ridge and in San Pedro Valley County Park and Frontierland Park.

Existing land use patterns in Linda Mar and Park
Pacifica are reflected in the Plan. There is a considerable amount of undeveloped land within City limits on the slope of San Pedro Mountain to the south.

These parcels are designated for lower density residential development than other areas of the City, in recognition of the constraints on development posed
by steep slopes, the City’s hillside development standards, limited access, and location adjacent to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones located on the
periphery of Pacifica.

Park Mall is a candidate for potential new development. The Plan would facilitate a mix of retail and residential uses, including housing for seniors, and
the creation of a small new public space. Very limited
residential development potential may exist on existing parcels in agricultural use, including the large Millwood Ranch and former Park Pacifica Stables
properties. These are designated Open Space/Agriculture/Residential or Conservation to ensure that open space and biological resource protection is an
emphasis of any development on these scenic and
remote properties.

Sphere of Influence
San Pedro Mountain and Pedro Point Headlands
define the southern boundary of Pacifica’s Sphere of
Influence, which includes the undeveloped 73-acre,
986-lot Tobin Park subdivision4 located outside the
Coastal Zone. The area between the City and Sphere
of Influence boundaries includes sloping, undeveloped land and Shamrock Ranch.

The Plan designates existing public open space in the
Sphere of Influence as Park, and designates all other
land as Urban Reserve. The Urban Reserve area is
intended to remain largely undeveloped. Shamrock
Ranch represents the area’s most significant potential
future development opportunity. Any new development here should be clustered to preserve open space and maintain land that could be developed beyond
the planning period to support future growth.
4 San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, Record of Subdivision Maps, Volume 9, Page 12.
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-29
Table 4-2: RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Land Use
Permitted Density
Range (units per acre)
Projected Density
(units per acre)2
New Housing Units at
Buildout
Residential Designation
Transitional Open Space/Residential 0.1 or less 0.08 0TBD Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential 0.2 or less 0.15 40 Very Low Density Residential 0.2 to 2 1.5 10
Low Density Residential 3 to 9 6.5 80
Medium Density Residential Up to 15 12.5 60
High Density Residential Up to 21 25 60
Mixed Use Designation
Coastal Residential Mixed Use Up to 15 15 70
Mixed Use Neighborhood Up to 26 25 300
Mixed Use Center Up to 50 25 380
Urban Reserve
Urban Reserve 0.1 or less 0.1 0
Net New Residential Potential1 990
1 May not sum due to rounding
2 Projected density is informed by average current density of projected land uses and allowable density ranges.

Sources: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2008; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020.

Development Capacity
One purpose of the General Plan and LCLUP is to
ensure that the City can accommodate projected
population and job growth over the planning period
(to 2040). This section estimates projected demand
for new housing and non-residential space, and the
development potential provided under the General
Plan land use framework.

Buildout
Policies in the General Plan will allow the City to
meet the needs of the future residents and workers,
including housing for a diversity of residents, parkland and public facilities, and adequate options for non-residential development to provide employment
opportunities and retail and services that respond to
the community’s daily needs.

Potential new development through the horizon year
and the corresponding growth in population and
employment is referred to as “buildout.” Buildout
is based on existing development and an estimated
amount of potential new development in the Planning Area. Buildout estimates should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur through 2040 is
based on many factors outside of the City’s control,
including changes in regional real estate and labor
markets and other long-term economic and demographic trends. Therefore, buildout estimates represent potentialities rather than definitive figures. To estimate buildout, assumptions were made about
the density of development in each proposed land
use designation, as well as the percentage of parcels
that would actually develop depending on location
and land use designation. The designation of a site
for a particular land use in the General Plan does
not guarantee that the site will be developed or redeveloped with that use or assumed density during the planning period, as future development will rely primarily on each property owner’s initiative.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
As Table 4-2 shows, buildout would result in an estimated 990 new housing units. Of these units, 12 percent would be single-family residential, and 88
percent would be multi-family residential including those within mixed-use developments. Assum- 4-30 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 4-3: NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN General Plan Land Use
Maximum NonResidential FARProjected NonResidential FAR2New Non-Residential Sq.

Ft. at Buildout
Mixed Use Designations
Coastal Residential Mixed Use 0.5 0.10 57,490
Mixed Use Neighborhood 1.0 0.25 182,890
Mixed Use Center 2.5 0.35 162,860
Commercial Designations
Retail Commercial 1.0 0.25 757,380
Office/Commercial 1.5 0.35 63,120
Service Commercial 0.6 0.25 21,000
Visitor-Serving Commercial 3.0 0.35 81,840
Rockaway Quarry Site4 0.5 0.35 448,400
Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial 0.2 0.05 40,550 Public Facilities and Open Space Designations
Public and Semi-Public 1.0 0.35 0
Total Non-Residential Development Potential
on Opportunity Sites
1,848,630
Existing Non-Residential Development on
Underutilized Sites
1,228,300
Net New Non-Residential Potential1 620,330
1 Acreages are shown rounded to the nearest whole number, but more detailed numbers are used in calculations. 2 Projected density is informed by average current density of projected land uses and allowable density ranges.

Sources: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2019; City of Pacifica, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. ing that average household size remains as it is today, new housing at buildout could accommodate population growth of about 2,720 and a total population of 41,050.

NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Table 4-3 shows the realistic non-residential development capacity in terms of square feet of new commercial buildings. Development capacity is based on the maximum intensity established for each designation by the General Plan, and is typically toward the middle of the allowable density range, pointing to
the existence of constraints on many sites. Realistic
development of opportunity sites would result in an
estimated 620,300 square feet of net new non-residential building area. New development is estimated to accommodate approximately 1,470 new jobs over
the planning period.
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-31

POLICIES
Policies included in both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Land Use Plan are indicated with a .

Guiding Policies
LU-G-1 Coastal Development. Ensure that
development maximizes beach and coastal
open space access and is oriented as much
as possible to each particular coastal environment in use, design, and intensity.

Policies related to coastal access are provided
in Chapter 6.

LU-G-2 Concentrated Development. Focus
new development in or directly adjacent
to already-developed areas, where it can
be served by existing public services and
where it will not have significant impacts
on coastal or other resources.

LU-G-3 Future Residential Development.

Limit development to sites that are not critical for open space connections or habitat preservation, and which will be in harmony
with the surrounding natural setting.

LU-G-4 Higher-Density Housing. Locate
higher-density housing outside of Coastal
Vulnerability Zones and in accessible
places close to community shopping areas
and transportation.

LU-G-5 Commercial Area Revitalization.

Facilitate the revitalization of shopping
areas and the creation of distinct commercial districts in Pacifica, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for
residents, enhanced attractions for visitors,
increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger
community image.

LU-G-6 Compact Mixed Use Development.

Facilitate compact mixed-use development
on sites with good access to transit. Mixeduse development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or personal service businesses.

LU-G-7 Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to
existing open space, and areas that support
critical wildlife habitat and special status
species.

LU-G-8 Changes in Density or Intensity of
Land Use in Coastal Vulnerability Zones.

Do not increase the density or intensity
of land use designations beyond those
indicated in the LCLUP for sites located
within Coastal Vulnerability Zones.

Policies related to Natural Hazards and
Coastal Resilience are provided in Chapter 8.

LU-G-9 Citizen Participation. Continue broadbased citizen participation in the planning process.

Implementing Policies
Land Use Designations
LU-I-1 Zoning Consistency. Update the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map and apply zoning to all land within the City, consistent with General Plan and LCLUP policies and land use designations.

LU-I-2 Land Divisions in the Coastal Zone.

Continue to require coastal development permits for all land divisions within the Coastal Zone. Land divisions in the
Coastal Zone shall be:
• Designed to minimize impacts to public
access, recreation, and coastal resources.
• Designed to minimize site disturbance,
landform alteration, and the removal of
native vegetation for development or fire
safety.
• Prohibited on properties that include
any areas that are within or adjacent to
an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Area (ESHA) unless the resulting parcels can be developed without building 4-32 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
or requiring vegetation clearance in the
ESHA or ESHA buffer, or unless the
resulting parcels are set aside for conservation.
• Permitted only in areas with adequate
public services to serve development on
the resulting parcels.
• Any land division that would result in
a parcel that could not be developed
in accordance with the policies of this
LCLUP is not allowed.

LU-I-3 Coastal Development Permit Findings. For all development that requires a coastal development permit, continue to
require written findings that it is consistent
with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

If there is a conflict between a provision of
this LCP and a provision of the General
Plan, or any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for the development to
comply with both the LCP and such other
plan, resolution or ordinance, the LCP shall
take precedence and the development shall
not be approved unless it complies with the
LCP provision.

LU-I-4 Coordinate with the County to protect the Urban Reserve. Coordinate with the County to ensure that new development in unincorporated areas occurs at a maximum density of 10 acres per unit, and
request that subdivision of 50 acres or more
is subject to master planning and annexation as a condition of any urban development.

Annexation would require a General Plan
amendment, and an LCLUP amendment
would be required for land within the
Coastal Zone.

LU-I-5 Density Ranges. Ensure that development
is permitted within the allowable density
range for the applicable land use designations.

LU-I-6 Sphere of Influence Annexations. Permit
annexation of unincorporated parcels on
the condition that parcels will correspond
to the Urban Reserve designation, including a minimum lot area of 1010 acres per dwelling unit. Contiguous parcels or units
held by the same owner in the Sphere of
Influence that do not conform to the minimum parcel lor lot size shall be required to merge pursuant to Pacifica Municipal
Code Title 1010.

Coastal Development
LU-I-7 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational
Facilities. Protect lower-cost visitor and
recreational facilities along the coastline.

These include recreational attractions such
as Pacifica Pier and Pacifica State Beach;
the public golf course at Sharp Park; the
San Francisco RV Park; and beaches accessible at no cost.

LU-I-8 Oceanfront Land for Recreational
Use. Protect land adjacent to Sharp Park
and Pacifica State Beaches for low-intensity
recreational use. Allowable uses should
include recreation outfitters, campgrounds,
rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or view restaurants.

LU-I-9 Development Priority for VisitorServing and Recreational Uses. Allow visitor-oriented uses as-of-right in all areas
designated for Visitor-Serving Commercial
or Low-Intensity Visitor-Serving Commercial, and all commercial or mixed-use districts within the Coastal Zone.

Development on Visitor-Serving Commercial sites with developable areas of two acres or larger must include a visitor attraction,
hotel, conference center, or similar use, and
may also include a range of retail and service
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-33
uses. Smaller sites may have any visitor- or
pedestrian-oriented retail or service use.

LU-I-10 Walkable and Transit-Oriented
Development. Facilitate higher-density,
mixed use development at specific locations
along the coastline where an active, pedestrian environment is desired.

Future development along Palmetto Avenue
and at the Eureka Square site; on lower
Linda Mar Boulevard and Crespi Drive
in West Linda Mar; at the Pacific Manor
Shopping Center; and at Rockaway Beach
and Quarry are easily accessible along the
Highway 1 corridor and transit routes. Such
development should help to make the coastline more accessible to residents and visitors.

LU-I-11 Coastal-Dependent Industry. Only
allow new coastal-dependent industry if
alternative locations outside the Coastal
Zone are infeasible or more environmentally damaging or because to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare,
and potential impacts to visual resources,
sensitive species and habitat, water quality are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Future development of oil and gas facilities,
refineries or petrochemical facilities, or thermal electric generating plants will be permitted only according to the terms established in Sections 30262, 30263, and 30264 of the
Coastal Act, and Conditions of Approval that
will ensure consistency with all Coastal Act
policies.

LU-I-12 Aquaculture. If oceanfront land is
found to be suitable for coastal-dependent
aquaculture, give such use priority over
non-coastal-dependent uses.

Major stretches of the Pacifica coastline along Sharp Park and Pacifica State Beaches are protected as open space, and accessible for recreational use (top). The General Plan facilitates mixed use development at specific locations along the coastline where an active environment is desired, including Palmetto Avenue (middle). The Hillside Preservation District helps to ensure careful site planning on steep terrain (bottom).
4-34 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
LU-I-13 Public Service Priorities. Ensure that
existing and planned public works facilities
accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted over the planning period.

In the event that existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services
to coastal dependent land use, essential public
services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and
visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.

Land Use Strategies to Protect Natural and
Scenic Resources
LU-I-14 Hillside Preservation. Update the
Hillside Preservation District and the zoning map to ensure that all steep and sensitive terrain is subject to these regulations.

The Hillside Preservation map (Figure 4-4)
should be used as a guide.

LU-I-15 Transfer of Development Rights.

Amend the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program to reflect the following changes:
• Use the City’s TDR ordinance to relocate development rights from Coastal Vulnerability zones and other hazardous
areas (sending sites) to receiving sites
out-side of Coastal Vulnerability zones
or other hazardous areas. Identify areas
where densities and heights may be
increased using TDR credits, including
to facilitate affordable housing.
• Apply receiving status to sites designated
for mixed use development in addition
to the residential land use categories.

The TDR Program provides a mechanism
to relocate potential development from areas
where environmental or land use impacts
could be severe to other areas more appropriate for development.

Land Use Programs to Facilitate Housing
LU-I-16 Density Bonus. Continue to facilitate
housing affordable to moderate-, low- and
extremely-low-income households by providing a density bonus of up to 50 percent over the maximum allowed by zoning.

Specific density bonus provisions in the zoning ordinance should be adjusted as needed to support housing types that are most needed
based on regional housing needs allocations or
local goals.

LU-I-17 Accessory Dwelling Units. Maintain the
Zoning Ordinance to ensure that regulations governing accessory dwelling units conform with current State requirements.

Accessory dwelling units are an important
component of the City’s strategy to provide
housing for moderate- and low-income
households.

LU-I-18 Parking Requirements. Update commercial and mixed use parking requirements as appropriate based on best practices. Provide for shared parking between commercial uses; car-sharing availability
for residential uses, reductions for transitaccessible locations, and other strategies.

LU-I-19 Height Limit. Replace a single citywide
height limit with height limits that vary
by neighborhood, topography, or other relevant factors, based on community input.

These may allow greater heights for buildings in the Mixed Use Center and VisitorServing Commercial designations.

Policies for Specific Sites
LU-I-20 Northern Coastal Bluffs. Maintain
the Planned Development zoning district
for the private, developable land on the
northern coastal bluffs to allow for the
consideration of development standards
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-35
that consider the potential environmental
and scenic resources on the site.

Allowable density should be consistent with
the Open Space/Residential/Agriculture designation. Where coastal bluff scrub vegetation is present, further analysis will be required
prior to any development. Work with public
agencies and others to facilitate permanent
conservation of scenic resources in this area.

LU-I-21 Bowl Site. Establish appropriate zoning for the “Bowl” site along the east side of Palmetto Avenue in Fairmont West for
Planned Development to ensure site planning that clusters development, avoiding potential flooding or geotechnical hazards
and protecting open space resources.

Allowable density should be consistent with
the Medium Density Residential designation.

LU-I-22 Pacific Manor. Establish appropriate
zoning for the Pacific Manor shopping district to facilitate Retail Commercial improvements and Mixed Use redevelopment.

Redevelopment or improvements should
enhance the area’s walkability and visual
appeal, and should include pedestrian realm
improvements that help to integrate the district with its coastal setting.

LU-I-23 Esplanade. Establish appropriate zoning for privately-owned, undeveloped land on the west side of Esplanade Avenue to
ensure minimal development consistent
with the General Plan designation New
development shall preserve the view corridor to the ocean along Bill Drake Way and shall be sited and designed to ensure that
any proposed development could withstand erosion resulting from a 100-year seismic or storm event and in accordance
with LCLUP Policy CR-I-44 and preserve
the view corridor to the ocean along Bill
Drake Way.

Redevelopment or improvements of Pacific Manor Shopping Center (top) should enhance the area’s visual appeal and integrate the district with its coastal setting. Redevelopment of the city-owned 2212 Beach Boulevard property (middle) should provide an anchor for Palmetto Avenue and enhance the beachfront experience. The Quarry site (bottom) could support hotels and other visitor-serving uses and complement the natural setting. Any development of the Quarry site must ensure that sensitive habitat is protected.
4-36 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
likely footprint of development could be much
smaller than the area designated.

LU-I-26 Rockaway Beach. Facilitate continued improvements in the Rockaway Beach district and promote infill development
emphasizing active ground-floor and visitor-oriented uses and links to the Quarry site.

LU-I-27 Rockaway Headlands. Facilitate very
low-intensity visitor-serving commercial
use on the Headlands between Rockaway
Beach and Pacifica State Beach. Maintain the Coastal Trail connecting the two beaches. Any use on this site must recognize the limited opportunity for vehicular access.

Potential uses should have a low development
impact and able to be readily relocated to
adapt to evolving coastal conditions, such as
rustic lodging, hikers’ huts, or similar uses.

LU-I-28 Pedro Point Shopping Center. Facilitate improvements to the existing Shopping Center that result in an improved orientation to the coastal environment
and that result in more efficient use of the
property with regards to parking, while
enhancing its appeal for both neighborhood residents and visitors. Maintain beach access along Shoreside Drive.

LU-I-29 Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Site.

Establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use
zoning district to allow small-scale visitororiented commercial uses as a stand-alone project without any residential development, or small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses with residential development at a density range of three to five units per
gross acre. Housing may be clustered, and
uses may be mixed vertically or horizontally. Residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial
uses, provided the overall site contains
both commercial and residential uses.

LU-I-24 Northern Palmetto. Support the
transition to low-intensity visitor-serving
commercial uses over time along the west
side of Palmetto Avenue in northern West
Sharp Park, and require improvement of
the visual appearance of permitted older
industrial uses when improvements are
proposed to these uses.

Geotechnical studies are required to determine the “net developable area.” New uses are required to provide appropriate setbacks along the coastal bluffs to protect new structures from loss during their design life,
and to provide public access to and along the
shoreline.

LU-I-25 Rockaway Quarry Site. Enable the
responsible development and environmental conservation of the Quarry Site.

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

Environmental protection is a priority at this
site and includes preserving upland areas as
open space, preserving the riparian corridor
along Calera Creek, and preserving critical
habitat. Any development of the Quarry site
will require detailed evaluation of potential
geotechnical hazards and biological resources
to ensure safe use of the site and that sensitive habitat and wetlands are protected; the 4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-37
Development must include public coastal
access and must provide public open space.

A wetland survey conducted according to the
requirements of Coastal Commission regulation 13577 (Title 14, California Code of Regulations) is required to delineate potential
wetlands on the site as part of the development application and environmental review process. An assessment of potential geotechnical hazards must also be part of the development application and environmental review process, including assessment of the Ocean
Shore railroad berm under hazard and vulnerability scenarios consistent with policies in Chapters 7 and 8.

LU-I-30 Pedro Point Upper Slopes. Maintain
zoning for the upper slopes of Pedro Point
to ensure that any new development is at a
density appropriate to the steep slopes.

If any portion of the property is designated as
official habitat for California red-legged frog,
a biological resources survey must be conducted and development will be required to avoid habitat areas.

LU-I-31 Upper Monterey Road. Extend the Hillside Preservation District zoning to steep sites along upper Monterey Road and limit
new development to a density that is consistent with the Residential/Open Space/ Agriculture designation.

LU-I-32 Milagra Canyon. Ensure that land along
Milagra Canyon south of Manor Drive
occurs at a density consistent with the
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential designation, is clustered to minimize environmental impacts, and resulting open space is permanently preserved.

LU-I-33 Eureka Square. Facilitate high-quality
redevelopment for the Eureka Square
Shopping Center using policies in the
Sharp Park Specific Plan.

The site’s position along Highway 1, beneath
a ridge and backed by multi-family housing
make it well-suited for higher-intensity development, which would also reinforce the area as Pacifica’s center. A small plaza should be
included as part of redevelopment.

LU-I-34 Gypsy Hill. Require sensitive site planning
in accordance with the Hillside Preservation District for up-per portions of Gypsy Hill.

Clustered development can preserve open
space and maintain the area’s function as a
wildlife movement corridor.

LU-I-35 East Fairway Park Hillside. Ensure consistency with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential designation on the slope above
Fairway Park to ensure that any new development occurs at a very low density and meets standards of the Hillside Preservation District.

LU-I-36 Cattle Hill and Fassler Ridge. Ensure consistency with the Open Space/Agriculture/ Residential land use designation on Cattle
Hill and Fassler Ridge, as shown on the
General Plan Land Use diagram, to ensure
that new development is appropriate to the
physical conditions and high scenic value
of the ridge.

Certain locations are designated for Low
Density Residential development; site planning in these areas should be subject to the Hillside Preservation District to provide
clustered development. The Royce water tank
site will retain a Utilities designation. Trail
easements should be negotiated with land
owners based on the Parks and Open Space
map (Figure 6-1).
4-38 PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
LU-I-37 Lower Cattle Hill. Any project proposed
on Lower Cattle Hill should perform
detailed transportation impact studies and
implement measures to minimize impacts
to vehicular traffic flow on Highway 1, and
to ensure maximum alternatives to singleoccupant vehicle trips, including but not limited to establishing on-site transit services and providing a pedestrian overcrossing to the west side of Highway 1.

LU-I-38 Lower Crespi Drive. Establish zoning
provisions to facilitate compact, mixed-use
redevelopment of older commercial and
residential properties along lower Crespi
Drive, consistent with the Mixed Use Center and Mixed Use Neighborhood designations.

Redevelopment adjacent to the Community
Center, Skate Park, and Pacifica State Beach
should provide a core for the southern portion of the City, a greater diversity of housing types, and a walkable commercial area appealing to both locals and visitors.

LU-I-39 Crespi Business Center. Protect existing
land uses at the Crespi Business Center to
support local employment and small business opportunities for residents. Ensure zoning allows the continuation of lightindustrial and research and development uses that would not generate significant
noise and odors, or use significant quantities of hazardous materials, that may be incompatible with mixed-use residential
development on the site or nearby sites.

LU-I-40 Linda Mar Shopping Center and Parkand-Ride. Allow redevelopment of the Linda Mar Shopping Center with additional commercial development along the Linda Mar Boulevard frontage. Rezone the
north side of Linda Mar Boulevard to facilitate mixed-use development, while also accommodating the existing park-and-ride
The General Plan allows higher-intensity mixed use redevelopment, as in the example at top, at Eureka Square (middle), and redevelopment along lower Crespi Drive should provide a walkable commercial area appealing to both locals and visitors (bottom).
4LAND USE
PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4-39
use, and improving the pedestrian-transit
interface.

LU-I-41 Linda Mar and Park Pacifica Hillsides.

Rezone steep land in the Linda Mar and
Park Pacifica hillsides consistent with the
Open Space/Agriculture/Residential land
use designation to be subject to the Hill-
side Preservation District.

LU-I-42 Park Mall Area. Facilitate mixed-use rede-
velopment at the Park Mall and Sanchez
Library sites and adjacent vacant land, with
retail uses concentrated along Oddstad and
Terra Nova Boulevards.

Upper story housing over retail may be pro-
vided, along with attached, multi-family
housing, and senior housing. Redevelopment
should include a small public open space and
public viewing areas at San Pedro Creek.

LU-I-43 Former Park Pacifica Stables. Ensure
development of the former Park Pacifica
Stables is consistent with the Open Space/
Agriculture/Residential land use designa-
tion , to provide opportunities related to
Pacifica’s natural setting, including con-
tinuing equestrian use, or open space and
minimal residential development.

LU-I-44 Shamrock Ranch. Coordinate with San
Mateo County to ensure that any new
development at Shamrock Ranch is clus-
tered to preserve open space.

Shamrock Ranch is the largest parcel in the
sphere of influence outside of City limits. Any
subdivision of greater than ten lots or develop-
ment of more than ten housing units or 40,000
square feet of non-residential space should
occur through a master planning process and
may involve annexation into the city. Such
subdivision and/or development may result in
a new neighborhood, employment area and/
or open spaces for Pacifica, and will require an
amendment to the General Plan.

APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix C

KNOWN DEVELOPMENTS
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

From: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Ryan Orgill <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Friedlander <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Pacifica SDMP Planning Meeting Follow Up
Hi Ryan,
Due to staff vacations at our consultant, I’m still waiting on the General Plan proposed land use designations GIS data. Should have those to you early next week.

Attached, please find a KMZ file that I hope you can import to replicate our Active Planning Applications map. Among those applications currently being processed and on the map, the following would be considered significant for stormwater drainage purposes in my mind:
1) 4000 Palmetto Ave: This project would be located in an area of town subject to coastal erosion that could impact the storm drain infrastructure. Plus, I’m not aware that a formal collection system exists in the immediate vicinity and would possibly need to be designed and constructed for the project if approved. 2) 200-224 Palmetto Ave: Not a major project or a new project, but it’s with Coastal Commission currently and they’re considering requiring the project to reroute sewer flows aware from a bluff face outfall into Palmetto Avenue on the inland portion of the site. As noted immediately above, I’m unsure the formality of any existing storm drain system in this segment of Palmetto Avenue and what its capacity may be to take these flows.
3) 699 Oceana Blvd: Would build a hotel and parking lot covering a high proportion of the site, much greater than the existing impervious surface on the site.
4) 701 Oceana Blvd: Two hotels or potentially one hotel with some residential development on a relatively steep, undeveloped site.
5) 1567 Beach Blvd (NOT ON LIST): City has plans to redevelop the site possibly with a hotel and parking structure. Site is largely pervious currently but likely would have significant impervious surface following redevelopment. Located close to ocean but existing outfalls may/may not be suitable near pier or Clarendon Road (which I understand has its own issues). 6) All projects draining to Clarendon Road outfall (NOT ON LIST): As noted above, seems existing Clarendon Road outfall has issues and so it would be helpful to understand what impact that may have on the higher intensity development contemplated in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. 7) Quarry Reclamation: This project does not include development, but is a prerequisite to potential future redevelopment. The City also intends to prepare a Quarry Specific Plan in the next couple years. Calera Creek seems readily available for storm drainage but listing the potential development of the Quarry as an issue to be considered.
8) Oddstad Way Lots 4-12; 10, 11, & 14 Oddstad Way; Bayview Road-Calera Terrace; 501 Santa Cruz Terrace:

These projects are all located in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood which has no formal stormwater drainage system to speak of (to my knowledge). Streams of water often flow downhill on the streets and flooding can be prevalent. Rockaway Creek (or Calera Creek, different names are used) drains the neighborhood but these new projects have the potential to exacerbate an already challenging situation in the neighborhood. Dozens of potential development sites exist on paper streets off Oddstad Way and Santa Cruz Terrace that could be developed and probably should be planned for in your SDMP. 9) All of the projects in Pedro Point neighborhood (street names San Pedro Ave, Olympian Way, Danmann Ave, Kent Rd, Sterling Ave, Blackburn Terrace, Grand Ave): This neighborhood does not have a formal storm drain system to speak of and the neighborhood is largely drained through a single culvert and ditch in the vicinity of 505 San Pedro Avenue (undeveloped property, APN 023-072-010). Getting a better handle on how to address storm drainage in this neighborhood as infill lots continue to be developed and existing development redevelops would be helpful. Some neighbors report significant uncontrolled hillside drainage east of the developed properties in the 1500-block of Grand Avenue for example (can provide videos or pictures possibly of past incidents). 10) Linda Mar Woods: Large hillside development proposed on undeveloped parcels with limited downslope existing storm drain infrastructure to handle new flows. May also eventually drain through the problematic Linda Mar outfall.

I think that’s the best summary I can provide for now. Happy to hop on a call if you need any clarifications of what I’m trying to describe.

Regards,
Christian

CHRISTIAN MURDOCK, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CITY OF PACIFICA | PLANNING DEPARTMENT
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7341 | [email protected]
From: Ryan Orgill <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 2:50 PM
To: Murdock, Christian <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Friedlander <[email protected]>
Subject: Pacifica SDMP Planning Meeting Follow Up
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hi Christian,
I wanted to follow up on our discussion a few weeks ago. Would you be able to provide a marked up map showing which of the planned developments on the City’s website you would consider to be significant? Thanks again for all your help with the project!
Ryan Orgill, PE
Principal Planning Engineer | Associate Vice President
100 West Liberty Street, Suite 740 | Reno, NV 89501
O 775.332.8722 | C 559.284.5451
[email protected] | carollo.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix D

FLOW MONITORING REPORT
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

City of Pacifica
Storm Drain Master Plan
Flow Monitoring
Prepared for: Carollo
100 West Liberty Street
Suite 740
Reno, NV 89501
Report Date: April 2022
Prepared by:

V&A Project No. 21-0090
In the promotion of environmental consciousness, this document is designed to be printed double-sided, if at all. V&A strives to do all it can to be a green company. Think twice before printing. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

Table of Contents
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1 Monitoring Sites and Basins.............................................................................................................. 1 Rainfall Monitoring............................................................................................................................ 3 Pipeline Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Scope and Purpose............................................................................................................... 5 2 Methods and Procedures .................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Confined Space Entry ........................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Flow Meter Installation ......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Flow Calculation ................................................................................................................... 9 3 Results and Analysis .......................................................................................................................10

3.1 Rainfall ...............................................................................................................................10 Regional Rainfall Event Classification ....................................................................13 Rain Gauge Triangulation Distribution....................................................................18

3.2 Flow Monitoring Data..........................................................................................................20 Appendix A Flow Monitoring Sites: Data, Graphs, and Information ....................................................... A-1 Tables
Table ES-1. List of Flow Monitoring Sites .................................................................................................................. 1 Table ES-2. Capacity Analysis Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1-1. List of Flow Monitoring Sites ..................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3-1. Summary of Rainfall ................................................................................................................................17 Table 3-2. Rain Gauge Distribution per Monitoring Site..........................................................................................19 Table 3-3. Capacity Analysis Summary.....................................................................................................................20 Table of Contents
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | ii
Figures
Figure ES-1. Map of Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Sites and Basins– Overall.................................................. 2 Figure ES-2. Rainfall Over Monitoring Period, Average of All Rain Gauges .............................................................. 3 Figure 1-1. Map of Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Sites and Basins ................................................................... 6 Figure 2-1. Typical Installation for Hach 904 Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor ................................................ 8 Figure 3-1. Map of Rain Gauge Locations................................................................................................................10 Figure 3-2. Rainfall during Flow Monitoring Period – Average of North and Central Rain Gauges ......................11 Figure 3-3. Rainfall during Flow Monitoring Period – Average of South Rain Gauges ..........................................11 Figure 3-4. Rainfall Accumulation Plot - triangulated to Pacifica City Hall ............................................................12 Figure 3-5. NOAA Southern California Rainfall Frequency Map..............................................................................13 Figure 3-6. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge North................................................................................14 Figure 3-7. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Central..............................................................................14 Figure 3-8. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Central East .....................................................................15 Figure 3-9. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge South................................................................................15 Figure 3-10. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Southwest......................................................................16 Figure 3-11. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Southeast ......................................................................16 Figure 3-12. Rainfall Inverse Distance Weighting Method......................................................................................18 Photo Log
Photo 2-1. Confined Space Entry ............................................................................................................. 7 Photo 2-2. Typical Personal Four-Gas Monitor......................................................................................... 7 Table of Contents
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | iii Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviations/Acronyms Definition
ADWF ........................................Average Dry Weather Flow AVG. ..........................................Average
CCTV .........................................Closed-Circuit Television CDEC .........................................California Data Exchange Center CIP ............................................Capital Improvement Plan CO .............................................Carbon Monoxide CWOP ........................................Citizen Weather Observing Program DIA. ...........................................Diameter d/D............................................Depth/Diameter Ratio FT. .............................................Feet
FM.............................................Flow Monitor GPD...........................................Gallons per Day GPM ..........................................Gallons per Minute GWI ...........................................Groundwater Infiltration H2S ...........................................Hydrogen Sulfide IN. .............................................Inch
I/I ..............................................Inflow and Infiltration IDM ...........................................Inch-Diameter Mile IDW ...........................................Inverse Distance Weighting LEL ............................................Lower Explosive Limit MAX...........................................Maximum
MGD..........................................Million Gallons per Day MIN. ..........................................Minimum
NOAA .........................................National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration N/A ...........................................Not applicable PF..............................................Peaking Factor PWS ..........................................Private Weather Station Q ...............................................Flow Rate RDI ............................................Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration RG.............................................Rain Gauge V&A ...........................................V&A Consulting Engineers, Inc.

WEF...........................................Water Environment Federation WRCC ........................................Western Regional Climate Center Table of Contents
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | iv
Terms and Definitions

Term Definition
Average dry
weather flow
(ADWF)
The average flow rate or pattern from days without noticeable inflow or infiltration response.

ADWF usage patterns for weekdays and weekends differ and must be computed separately.

ADWF is expressed as a numeric average and may include the influence of normal groundwater infiltration (not related to a rain event).

Basin Sanitary sewer collection system upstream of a given location (often a flow meter), including all pipelines, inlets, and appurtenances. Also refers to the ground surface area near and enclosed by pipelines. A basin may refer to the entire collection system upstream from a flow meter or exclude separately monitored basins upstream.

Depth/diameter
(d/D) ratio
Depth of water in a pipe as a fraction of the pipe’s diameter. A measure of the fullness of the pipe used in the capacity analysis.

Infiltration and
inflow
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) rates are calculated by subtracting the ADWF flow curve from the instantaneous flow measurements taken during and after a storm event. Flow in excess of the baseline consists of inflow, rainfall-responsive infiltration, and rainfall-dependent infiltration. Total I/I is the total sum in gallons of additional flow attributable to a storm event.

Infiltration,
groundwater
Groundwater infiltration (GWI) is groundwater that enters the collection system through pipe defects. GWI depends on the depth of the groundwater table above the pipelines as well as the percentage of the system that is submerged. The variation of groundwater levels and subsequent groundwater infiltration rates are seasonal by nature. On a day-to-day basis, groundwater infiltration rates are relatively steady and will not fluctuate greatly.

Infiltration,
rainfalldependent
Rainfall-dependent infiltration (RDI) is similar to groundwater infiltration but occurs as a result of storm water. The storm water percolates into the soil, submerges more of the pipe system, and enters through pipe defects. RDI is the slowest component of storm-related infiltration and inflow, beginning gradually and often lasting 24 hours or longer. The response time depends on the soil permeability and saturation levels.

Inflow Inflow is defined as water discharged into the sewer system, including private sewer laterals, from direct connections such as downspouts, yard, and area drains, holes in manhole covers, cross-connections from storm drains, or catch basins. Inflow creates a peak flow problem in the sewer system and often dictates the required capacity of downstream pipes and transport facilities to carry these peak instantaneous flows. Overflows are often attributable to high inflow rates.

Peak Wet
Weather Flow
The highest daily flow during and immediately after a significant storm event. Includes sanitary flow, infiltration, and inflow.

Peaking factor
(PF)
PF is the ratio of peak measured flow to average dry weather flow. This ratio expresses the degree of fluctuation in flow rate over the monitoring period and is used in the capacity analysis.

Surcharge When the flow level is higher than the crown of the pipe, then the pipeline is said to be in a surcharged condition. The pipeline is surcharged when the d/D ratio is greater than 1.0.

Executive Summary
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | 1
Executive Summary
Scope and Purpose
V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) has completed storm drain flow monitoring and rainfall monitoring within the City of Pacifica (City) storm water collection system. Flow and rainfall monitoring were performed over a period of over four (4) weeks from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Five (5) manholes were monitored using open channel flow meters.

Monitoring Sites and Basins
The flow monitoring site locations were selected and approved by the City and Carollo and are listed in Table ES-1. Figure ES-1 shows the monitoring sites and corresponding isolated basins along with rain gauges selected for this project.

Table ES-1. List of Flow Monitoring Sites
Monitoring Site Monitored Pipe
Pipe
Location
Diameter (in)
Site 1 Northeast Inlet 42.5 Hwy 1 & Monterey Rd
Site 2 West Outlet 45.5 Edgemar Ave, south of Arroyo Dr Site 3 Northwest Inlet 47.75 Francisco Blvd
Site 4 East Inlet 59.5 Behind houses off Anza Dr. Access from Northeast
Site 5 East Inlet 36 h x 48 w box Desolo Dr between Arguello Blvd. & Linda Mar Blvd.

Executive Summary
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | 2
Figure ES-1. Map of Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Sites and Basins– Overall Executive Summary
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | 3
Rainfall Monitoring
Within the City, there were approximately 10.3 inches of rainfall during the flow monitoring study, as shown in Figure ES-2. The cumulative precipitation was approximately 47% higher than historical averages over the flow monitoring period.

Figure ES-2. Rainfall Over Monitoring Period, Average of All Rain Gauges There were two classifiable rainfall events during the flow monitoring period:
▪ Event 1 (December 12 – 17, 2021) – Peak intensity was 26-year, 4-day event at the South rain gauge.
▪ Event 2 (December 21 – 30, 2021) – Peak intensity was 3-year, 8 hour and 2-year, 9-day event at the South rain gauge.

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 1.40
6-Dec7-Dec8-Dec9-Dec
10-Dec11-Dec12-Dec13-Dec14-Dec15-Dec16-Dec17-Dec18-Dec19-Dec20-Dec21-Dec22-Dec23-Dec24-Dec25-Dec26-Dec27-Dec28-Dec29-Dec30-Dec31-Dec 1-Jan2-Jan3-Jan4-Jan5-Jan6-Jan7-Jan8-Jan9-Jan
10-Jan11-Jan12-Jan13-Jan
Rain (inches per hour)
Total Rainfall over Period: 10.3 inches
Event 2: 5.1 inches
Event 1: 5.1 inches
Executive Summary
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | 4
Pipeline Capacity Analysis
Table ES-2 summarizes the peak recorded flows, levels, and water depth/structure height (d/H) ratios per site during the flow monitoring period. Note that capacity analysis data is presented on a site-by-site basis and represents the hydraulic conditions only at the point site location. Hydraulic conditions in other areas of the collection system will differ. The totalized flow is defined as the total flow that passed through the monitoring site from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022.

Table ES-2. Capacity Analysis Summary
Site
Name
Peak
Level (in)
Diameter/
Height (in) d/H
Peak
Measured
Flow (mgd)
Totalized Flow
(gallons)
Site 1 5.28 42.50 0.12 6.64 15,165,000
Site 2 15.10 49.00 0.31 39.75 74,783,000
Site 3 10.32 47.75 0.22 10.83 21,564,000
Site 4 100.71 62.00 1.72 27.10 25,253,000
Site 5 40.13 36.00 1.11 26.46 40,368,000
Introduction
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | 5
1 Introduction

1.1 Scope and Purpose
V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) has completed storm drain flow monitoring and rainfall monitoring within the City of Pacifica (City) storm water collection system. Flow and rainfall monitoring were performed over a period of over four (4) weeks from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Five (5) manholes were monitored using open channel flow meters.

The main purpose of this study was to collect storm water flow data to support the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. The flow and rainfall monitoring locations are listed in Table 1-1 and shown in Figure 1-1.

Map of Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Sites and Basins
Table 1-1. List of Flow Monitoring Sites
Monitoring Site Monitored Pipe
Pipe
Location
Diameter (in)
Site 1 Northeast Inlet 42.5 Hwy 1 & Monterey Rd
Site 2 West Outlet 49 Edgemar Ave, south of Arroyo Dr
Site 3 Northwest Inlet 47.75 Francisco Blvd
Site 4 East Inlet 62 Behind houses off Anza Dr. Access
from Northeast
Site 5 East Inlet 36 h x 48 w box Desolo Dr between Arguello & Linda Mar
Introduction
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring | 6
Figure 1-1. Map of Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Sites and Basins Methods and Procedures
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |7
2 Methods and Procedures

2.1 Confined Space Entry
A confined space (Photo 2-1) is defined as any space that is large enough and so configured that a person can bodily enter and perform assigned work, has limited or restricted means for entry or exit and is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. In general, the atmosphere must be constantly monitored for sufficient levels of oxygen (19.5% to 23.5%), and the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas, carbon monoxide (CO) gas, and lower explosive limit (LEL) levels. A typical confined space entry crew has members with OSHA-defined responsibilities of Entrant, Attendant, and Supervisor. The Entrant is the individual performing the work. He or she is equipped with the necessary personal protective equipment needed to perform the job safely, including a personal four-gas monitor (Photo 2-2). If it is not possible to maintain line-of-sight with the Entrant, then more Entrants are required until line-of-sight can be maintained. The Attendant is responsible for maintaining contact with the Entrants to monitor the atmosphere using another four-gas monitor and maintaining records of all Entrants if there is more than one. The Supervisor is responsible for developing the safe work plan for the job at hand prior to entering.

Photo 2-1. Confined Space Entry Photo 2-2. Typical Personal Four-Gas Monitor Methods and Procedures
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |8

2.2 Flow Meter Installation
V&A installed five (5) Hach FL904 flow meters for temporary monitoring within the collection 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 parti cles 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. Figure 2-1 shows a typical installation for a flow meter with a submerged sensor.

Figure 2-1. Typical Installation for Hach 904 Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor Methods and Procedures
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |9

2.3 Flow Calculation
Data retrieved from the flow meters were placed into a spreadsheet program for analysis. Data analysis includes 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).

Area-velocity flow metering uses the continuity equation, ( ) Q v A v AT− AS=  = 
where Q: volume flow rate
v: average velocity as determined by the ultrasonic sensor A: cross-sectional area available to carry the flow
AT: total cross-sectional area with both wastewater and sediment AS: cross-sectional area of sediment.

For a circular pipe,




















 −











− − 











= −
− −
D
D d
d
D
D
D d
A
W
W
W
T
2 sin cos 1
2 2
2 cos 1
4 1 1
2 



















 −











− − 











= −
− −
D
D d
d
D
D
D d
A
S
S
S
S
2 sin cos 1
2 2
2 cos 1
4 1 1
2 where dW: distance between wastewater level and pipe invert dS: depth of sediment
D: pipe diameter
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |10
3 Results and Analysis

3.1 Rainfall
V&A captured rainfall data from six (6) publicly available private weather stations (PWS1), allowing for good coverage over the flow monitoring area. Rain gauge locations are shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. Map of Rain Gauge Locations
Figure 3-3 shows the rainfall during the flow monitoring period, averaged between the six rain gauges within (or very near to) the targeted area. Figure 3-4 shows the rain accumulation plot versus historical 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Citizen Weather Observer Program (CWOP) members send data from their PWS to the NOAA MADIS server; the data undergoes quality checking and then is distributed. While V&A has no direct control over the rain gauges, V&A performs additional QA/QC on the data to ensure its suitability for use.

Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |11
average2 period rainfalls for these same six rain gauges; rainfall for this study was approximately 47% higher than the historical precipitation during the flow monitoring period.

Figure 3-2. Rainfall during Flow Monitoring Period – Average of North and Central Rain Gauges Figure 3-3. Rainfall during Flow Monitoring Period – Average of South Rain Gauges 2 Historical data taken from the WRCC (triangulated from Station 43714 in Half Moon Bay and Station 47769 in in San Francisco WSO AP ): http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmsca.html

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 6-Dec7-Dec8-Dec9-Dec
10-Dec11-Dec12-Dec13-Dec14-Dec15-Dec16-Dec17-Dec18-Dec19-Dec20-Dec21-Dec22-Dec23-Dec24-Dec25-Dec26-Dec27-Dec28-Dec29-Dec30-Dec31-Dec 1-Jan2-Jan3-Jan4-Jan5-Jan6-Jan7-Jan8-Jan9-Jan
10-Jan11-Jan12-Jan13-Jan
Rain (inches per hour)
Total Rainfall over Period: 14.94 inches
Event 2: 6.19 inches
Event 1: 7.47 inches
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |12
Figure 3-4. Rainfall Accumulation Plot - triangulated to Pacifica City Hall

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 6-Dec8-Dec
10-Dec12-Dec14-Dec16-Dec18-Dec20-Dec22-Dec24-Dec26-Dec28-Dec30-Dec 1-Jan3-Jan5-Jan7-Jan9-Jan
11-Jan13-Jan
Rain (inches)
Historical Average
N
C
CE
SW
S
SE
Period Rainfall Triangulated

7.49 10.98

9.95 9.75

15.62 14.26

14.95 10.98
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |13
Regional Rainfall Event Classification
It is important to classify the relative size of a major storm event that occurs over the course of a flow monitoring period3. Rainfall events are classified by intensity and duration. Based on historical data, frequency contour maps for storm events of given intensity and duration have been developed by the NOAA for all areas within the continental United States (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-5. NOAA Southern California Rainfall Frequency Map For example, the NOAA Rainfall Frequency Atlas 4 classifies a 10-year, 24-hour storm event at the Central rain gauge location as 4.04 inches. This means that in any given year, at this specific location, there is a 10% chance that 4.04 inches of rain will fall in any 24-hour period.

From the NOAA frequency maps, for a specific latitude and longitude, the rainfall densities for period durations ranging from 1 hour to 20 days are known for rain events ranging from 1-year to 10-year intensities. These are plotted to develop a rain event frequency map specific to each rainfall monitoring site. Superimposing the peak measured densities for the rainfall events on the rain event fre quency plot determines the classification of the rainfall event. Figure 3-6 to Figure 3-11 illustrate the rain event classification plots at each rain gauge. Table 3-1 summarizes the rainfall that fell for all rain gauges for key rainfall events and overall for the flow monitoring period. 3 Sanitary sewers are often designed to withstand I/I contribution to sanitary flows for specific-sized “design” storm events. 4 NOAA Western U.S. Precipitation Frequency Maps Atlas 14, Volume 6, 2011:
ftp://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pub/hdsc/data/sw/ca10y24h.pdf
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |14
Figure 3-6. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge North Figure 3-7. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Central 1 2
5 10
25 50
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Inches of Rain
12/12/21 - 12/17/21
12/21/21 - 12/29/21
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr
1 2
5 10
25 50
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Inches of Rain
12/12/21 - 12/17/21
12/21/21 - 12/29/21
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |15
Figure 3-8. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Central East Figure 3-9. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge South

1 2
5 10
25 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
Inches of Rain
12/12/21 - 12/17/21
12/21/21 - 12/29/21
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr
1 2
5 10
25 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Inches of Rain
12/12/21 - 12/17/21
12/21/21 - 12/29/21
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 1-day 2-day 3-day 4-day
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |16

Figure 3-10. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Southwest

Figure 3-11. Rainfall Event Classification – Rain Gauge Southeast

1 2
5 10
25 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Inches of Rain
12/12/21 - 12/17/21
12/21/21 - 12/29/21
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 1-day 2-day 3-day 4-day
1 2
5 10
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Inches of Rain
12/12/21 - 12/17/21
12/21/21 - 12/29/21
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 1-day 2-day 3-day 4-day
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |17
Table 3-1. Summary of Rainfall
Rain Gauge
Event 1: Dec 12 – 17, 2021 Event 2: Dec 21 – 29, 2021
Short
Duration
Long Duration Short
Duration
Long Duration
North 5-Yr,12-Hr 3-Yr, 4-Day <1-Yr <1-Yr
Central East 2-Yr, 24-Hr 1.5-Yr, 4-Day <1-Yr <1-Yr
Central 9-Yr, 12-Hr 4-Yr, 4-Day 1.5-Yr, 6-Hr 1-Yr, 9-Day Southwest
(SW) 18-Yr,2-Day 21-Yr,4-Day 2-Yr, 8-Hr 2-Yr, 9-Day
South 24-Yr, 2Day 26-Yr, 4-Day 3-Yr, 8-Hour 2-Yr, 9-Day Southeast
(SE) 18-Yr, 2-Day 15-Yr, 4-Day 2-Yr, 8-Hour 2-Yr, 9-Day Based on the available data, a geographical difference in rain intensity was observed as the rain intensity increased sharply from north to south.

Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |18
Rain Gauge Triangulation Distribution
The rainfall affecting the sanitary sewer collection system basins must be calculated based on the proximity to the rain gauge locations. The mean precipitation for each site’s upstream basin was calculated by taking data from the rain gauges and using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method.

IDW is an interpolation method that assumes the influence of each rain gauge location diminishes with distance. The center of an upstream basin 5 is identified, and a weighted triangulated average is taken of the precipitation data from nearby rain gauge locations.

The IDW function is as follows:

=
p
p
d
d weight d
1 1
( )
, where: d = distance p = power (p > 0)
The value of p is user defined. The most common choice for hydrological studies of watershed areas is p = 2.

Figure 3 6 illustrates the IDW method with sample data. The rain gauge distribution as calculated for each flow monitoring basin is shown in Table 3-2.

Figure 3-12. Rainfall Inverse Distance Weighting Method 5 Note that the full basin upstream of the site was used instead of the isolated basins as the rain data will be compared to th e flow at each site
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |19
Table 3-2. Rain Gauge Distribution per Monitoring Site
Site North Central Centraleast Southwest South Southeast P1 83.16% 9.27% 7.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
P2 23.19% 34.85% 41.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
P3 1.25% 95.21% 3.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
P4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 89.90% 5.28% 4.82%
P5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 23.79% 68.36% 7.85%
Results and Analysis
21-0090 | City of Pacifica | 2021 Flow Monitoring |20

3.2 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.

Error! Reference source not found.Table 3-3 summarizes the peak recorded flows, levels, and 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; hydraulic conditions in other areas of the collection system will differ.

The totalized flow is defined as the total flow that passed through the monitoring sites from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022.

Table 3-3. Capacity Analysis Summary
Site Name Peak Level
(in)1
Diameter/
Height (in) d/H
Peak
Measured
Flow (mgd)
Totalized
Flow
(gallons)
Site 1 5.28 42.50 0.12 6.64 15,165,000
Site 2 15.10 49.00 0.31 39.75 74,783,000
Site 3 10.32 47.75 0.22 10.83 21,564,000
Site 4 100.71 62.00 1.72 27.10 25,253,000
Site 5 40.13 36.00 1.11 26.46 40,368,000

Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Sites: Data,
Graphs, and Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site:

Location:

P1
Hwy 1 & Monterey Rd
Storm Sewer Flow Monitoring 2021/2022
City of Pacifica
Vicinity Map: P1
Data Summary Report
December 06, 2021 - January 11, 2022
| P1 - 1
P1
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information MH ID: P1
Measured Pipe Diameter: 42.5 inches
ADWF: 0.00 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 6.64 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sanitary Map
Location: Hwy 1 & Monterey Rd
Rim Elevation (Earth): 120 feet
Plan View
Coordinates: 122.4900° W, 37.6510° N
Sediment: None
| P1 - 2
P1
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored Influent Pipe
| P1 - 3
P1
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend

0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 10.03 inchesAvg Daily Flow: 0.361 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 2.530 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.000 MGal | P1 - 4
P1
Flow Summary: 12/10/2021 to 1/11/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.000
Dec 10
(Fri)
Dec 11
(Sat)
Dec 12
(Sun)
Dec 13
(Mon)
Dec 14
(Tue)
Dec 15
(Wed)
Dec 16
(Thu)
Dec 17
(Fri)
Dec 18
(Sat)
Dec 19
(Sun)
Dec 20
(Mon)
Dec 21
(Tue)
Dec 22
(Wed)
Dec 23
(Thu)
Dec 24
(Fri)
Dec 25
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow ADWF

0.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.000
Dec 26
(Sun)
Dec 27
(Mon)
Dec 28
(Tue)
Dec 29
(Wed)
Dec 30
(Thu)
Dec 31
(Fri)
Jan 01
(Sat)
Jan 02
(Sun)
Jan 03
(Mon)
Jan 04
(Tue)
Jan 05
(Wed)
Jan 06
(Thu)
Jan 07
(Fri)
Jan 08
(Sat)
Jan 09
(Sun)
Jan 10
(Mon)
Jan 11
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /hr)
Period Rainfall: 9.90 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.460 mgd Period Peak Flow: 6.642 mgd Period Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P1 - 5
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/6/2021 to 12/13/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
12/6 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.79 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.27 in. Peak Level: 1.84 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.70 fps Peak Velocity: 12.47 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.027 mgd Peak Flow: 1.194 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P1 - 6
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/13/2021 to 12/20/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.45 in. Peak Level: 5.28 in. Min Level: 0.50 in.

Avg Velocity: 8.42 fps Peak Velocity: 15.88 fps Min Velocity: 3.83 fps Avg Flow: 0.735 mgd Peak Flow: 6.642 mgd Min Flow: 0.092 mgd | P1 - 7
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/20/2021 to 12/27/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.26 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.40 in. Peak Level: 5.21 in. Min Level: 0.43 in.

Avg Velocity: 8.52 fps Peak Velocity: 15.16 fps Min Velocity: 4.19 fps Avg Flow: 0.649 mgd Peak Flow: 5.852 mgd Min Flow: 0.071 mgd | P1 - 8
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.40 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.15 in. Peak Level: 4.20 in. Min Level: 0.50 in.

Avg Velocity: 7.95 fps Peak Velocity: 15.46 fps Min Velocity: 3.91 fps Avg Flow: 0.435 mgd Peak Flow: 4.036 mgd Min Flow: 0.086 mgd | P1 - 9
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.40 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.15 in. Peak Level: 4.20 in. Min Level: 0.50 in.

Avg Velocity: 7.95 fps Peak Velocity: 15.46 fps Min Velocity: 3.91 fps Avg Flow: 0.435 mgd Peak Flow: 4.036 mgd Min Flow: 0.086 mgd | P1 - 9
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/3/2022 to 1/10/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.58 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.92 in. Peak Level: 2.75 in. Min Level: 0.48 in.

Avg Velocity: 7.28 fps Peak Velocity: 12.37 fps Min Velocity: 3.88 fps Avg Flow: 0.266 mgd Peak Flow: 1.806 mgd Min Flow: 0.067 mgd | P1 - 10
P1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/10/2022 to 1/17/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14 1/15 1/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.24 in. Peak Level: 1.18 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.84 fps Peak Velocity: 8.47 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.054 mgd Peak Flow: 0.356 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P1 - 11
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site:

Location:

P2
Edgemar Ave, south of Arroyo Dr
Storm Sewer Flow Monitoring 2021/2022
City of Pacifica
Vicinity Map: P2
Data Summary Report
December 06, 2021 - January 11, 2022
| P2 - 1
P2
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information MH ID: P2
Measured Pipe Diameter: 49 inches
ADWF: 0.00 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 39.75 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sanitary Map
Location: Edgemar Ave, south of Arroyo Dr
Rim Elevation (Earth): 83 feet
Plan View
Coordinates: 122.4902° W, 37.6464° N
Sediment: None
| P2 - 2
P2
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitored Effluent Pipe
East Influent Pipe
| P2 - 3
P2
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0002.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.00014.00016.00018.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend

0.0002.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.00014.00016.00018.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 10.23 inchesAvg Daily Flow: 1.781 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 16.066 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.000 MGal | P2 - 5
P2
Flow Summary: 12/10/2021 to 1/11/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0005.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.00040.00045.000
Dec 10
(Fri)
Dec 11
(Sat)
Dec 12
(Sun)
Dec 13
(Mon)
Dec 14
(Tue)
Dec 15
(Wed)
Dec 16
(Thu)
Dec 17
(Fri)
Dec 18
(Sat)
Dec 19
(Sun)
Dec 20
(Mon)
Dec 21
(Tue)
Dec 22
(Wed)
Dec 23
(Thu)
Dec 24
(Fri)
Dec 25
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow ADWF

0.0005.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.00040.00045.000
Dec 26
(Sun)
Dec 27
(Mon)
Dec 28
(Tue)
Dec 29
(Wed)
Dec 30
(Thu)
Dec 31
(Fri)
Jan 01
(Sat)
Jan 02
(Sun)
Jan 03
(Mon)
Jan 04
(Tue)
Jan 05
(Wed)
Jan 06
(Thu)
Jan 07
(Fri)
Jan 08
(Sat)
Jan 09
(Sun)
Jan 10
(Mon)
Jan 11
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /hr)
Period Rainfall: 10.10 inches Period Avg Flow: 2.266 mgd Period Peak Flow: 39.751 mgd Period Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P2 - 6
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/6/2021 to 12/13/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
12/6 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.70 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.42 in. Peak Level: 4.72 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.18 fps Peak Velocity: 17.28 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.168 mgd Peak Flow: 6.923 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P2 - 7
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/13/2021 to 12/20/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.07 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 3.42 in. Peak Level: 15.10 in. Min Level: 0.25 in.

Avg Velocity: 9.86 fps Peak Velocity: 22.62 fps Min Velocity: 3.64 fps Avg Flow: 4.086 mgd Peak Flow: 39.751 mgd Min Flow: 0.031 mgd | P2 - 8
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/20/2021 to 12/27/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.59 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 3.10 in. Peak Level: 12.86 in. Min Level: 0.02 in.

Avg Velocity: 9.78 fps Peak Velocity: 22.69 fps Min Velocity: 2.76 fps Avg Flow: 3.472 mgd Peak Flow: 35.037 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P2 - 9
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.30 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.45 in. Peak Level: 9.58 in. Min Level: 0.95 in.

Avg Velocity: 8.92 fps Peak Velocity: 20.66 fps Min Velocity: 4.66 fps Avg Flow: 1.811 mgd Peak Flow: 19.426 mgd Min Flow: 0.208 mgd | P2 - 10
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.30 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.45 in. Peak Level: 9.58 in. Min Level: 0.95 in.

Avg Velocity: 8.92 fps Peak Velocity: 20.66 fps Min Velocity: 4.66 fps Avg Flow: 1.811 mgd Peak Flow: 19.426 mgd Min Flow: 0.208 mgd | P2 - 10
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/3/2022 to 1/10/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.56 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.95 in. Peak Level: 5.86 in. Min Level: 1.08 in.

Avg Velocity: 7.91 fps Peak Velocity: 20.24 fps Min Velocity: 5.03 fps Avg Flow: 1.008 mgd Peak Flow: 9.642 mgd Min Flow: 0.308 mgd | P2 - 11
P2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/10/2022 to 1/17/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0
Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

40.00 45.00
1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14 1/15 1/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.42 in. Peak Level: 1.98 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.92 fps Peak Velocity: 8.96 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.139 mgd Peak Flow: 0.745 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P2 - 12
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site:

Location:

P3
Francisco Blvd
Storm Sewer Flow Monitoring 2021/2022
City of Pacifica
Vicinity Map: P3
Data Summary Report
December 06, 2021 - January 11, 2022
| P3 - 1
P3
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information MH ID: P3
Measured Pipe Diameter: 47.75 inches
ADWF: 0.00 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 10.83 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sanitary Map
Location: Francisco Blvd
Rim Elevation (Earth): 15 feet
Plan View
Coordinates: 122.4889° W, 37.6298° N
Sediment: None
| P3 - 2
P3
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored Influent Pipe
| P3 - 3
P3
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.5004.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend

0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.5004.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 10.92 inchesAvg Daily Flow: 0.513 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 3.556 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.000 MGal | P3 - 4
P3
Flow Summary: 12/10/2021 to 1/11/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0002.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.000
Dec 10
(Fri)
Dec 11
(Sat)
Dec 12
(Sun)
Dec 13
(Mon)
Dec 14
(Tue)
Dec 15
(Wed)
Dec 16
(Thu)
Dec 17
(Fri)
Dec 18
(Sat)
Dec 19
(Sun)
Dec 20
(Mon)
Dec 21
(Tue)
Dec 22
(Wed)
Dec 23
(Thu)
Dec 24
(Fri)
Dec 25
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow ADWF

0.0002.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.000
Dec 26
(Sun)
Dec 27
(Mon)
Dec 28
(Tue)
Dec 29
(Wed)
Dec 30
(Thu)
Dec 31
(Fri)
Jan 01
(Sat)
Jan 02
(Sun)
Jan 03
(Mon)
Jan 04
(Tue)
Jan 05
(Wed)
Jan 06
(Thu)
Jan 07
(Fri)
Jan 08
(Sat)
Jan 09
(Sun)
Jan 10
(Mon)
Jan 11
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /hr)
Period Rainfall: 10.83 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.653 mgd Period Peak Flow: 10.832 mgd Period Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P3 - 5
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/6/2021 to 12/13/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 12/6 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.63 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.75 in. Peak Level: 4.94 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.65 fps Peak Velocity: 7.10 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.111 mgd Peak Flow: 3.000 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P3 - 6
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/13/2021 to 12/20/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.53 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 3.07 in. Peak Level: 9.20 in. Min Level: 1.60 in.

Avg Velocity: 3.86 fps Peak Velocity: 7.50 fps Min Velocity: 0.73 fps Avg Flow: 1.148 mgd Peak Flow: 7.869 mgd Min Flow: 0.065 mgd | P3 - 7
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/20/2021 to 12/27/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.87 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.78 in. Peak Level: 10.32 in. Min Level: 0.84 in.

Avg Velocity: 3.61 fps Peak Velocity: 9.02 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.979 mgd Peak Flow: 10.832 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P3 - 8
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.33 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.33 in. Peak Level: 7.03 in. Min Level: 1.58 in.

Avg Velocity: 3.08 fps Peak Velocity: 9.76 fps Min Velocity: 1.57 fps Avg Flow: 0.551 mgd Peak Flow: 7.175 mgd Min Flow: 0.136 mgd | P3 - 9
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.33 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.33 in. Peak Level: 7.03 in. Min Level: 1.58 in.

Avg Velocity: 3.08 fps Peak Velocity: 9.76 fps Min Velocity: 1.57 fps Avg Flow: 0.551 mgd Peak Flow: 7.175 mgd Min Flow: 0.136 mgd | P3 - 9
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/3/2022 to 1/10/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.57 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.91 in. Peak Level: 4.95 in. Min Level: 1.50 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.08 fps Peak Velocity: 7.40 fps Min Velocity: 0.75 fps Avg Flow: 0.256 mgd Peak Flow: 2.861 mgd Min Flow: 0.065 mgd | P3 - 10
P3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/10/2022 to 1/17/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14 1/15 1/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.48 in. Peak Level: 1.95 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.40 fps Peak Velocity: 2.05 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.035 mgd Peak Flow: 0.181 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P3 - 11
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site:

Location:

P4
Behind houses off Anza Dr. Access from Northeast
Storm Sewer Flow Monitoring 2021/2022
City of Pacifica
Vicinity Map: P4
Data Summary Report
December 06, 2021 - January 11, 2022
| P4 - 1
P4
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information MH ID: P4
Measured Pipe Diameter: 58.5 inches
ADWF: 0.00 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 27.10 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sanitary Map
Location: Behind houses off Anza Dr.

Access from Northeast
Rim Elevation (Earth): 1 feet
Plan View
Coordinates: 122.5015° W, 37.5980° N
Sediment: 4 inches
| P4 - 2
P4
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitored Effluent Pipe
North Influent Pipe
| P4 - 3
P4
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information East Influent Pipe
| P4 - 4
P4
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend

0.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 14.36 inchesAvg Daily Flow: 0.601 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 6.717 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.000 MGal | P4 - 5
P4
Flow Summary: 12/10/2021 to 1/11/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0005.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.000
Dec 10
(Fri)
Dec 11
(Sat)
Dec 12
(Sun)
Dec 13
(Mon)
Dec 14
(Tue)
Dec 15
(Wed)
Dec 16
(Thu)
Dec 17
(Fri)
Dec 18
(Sat)
Dec 19
(Sun)
Dec 20
(Mon)
Dec 21
(Tue)
Dec 22
(Wed)
Dec 23
(Thu)
Dec 24
(Fri)
Dec 25
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow ADWF

0.0005.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.000
Dec 26
(Sun)
Dec 27
(Mon)
Dec 28
(Tue)
Dec 29
(Wed)
Dec 30
(Thu)
Dec 31
(Fri)
Jan 01
(Sat)
Jan 02
(Sun)
Jan 03
(Mon)
Jan 04
(Tue)
Jan 05
(Wed)
Jan 06
(Thu)
Jan 07
(Fri)
Jan 08
(Sat)
Jan 09
(Sun)
Jan 10
(Mon)
Jan 11
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /hr)
Period Rainfall: 14.19 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.765 mgd Period Peak Flow: 27.095 mgd Period Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P4 - 6
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/6/2021 to 12/13/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/6 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.73 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 9.82 in. Peak Level: 64.69 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.04 fps Peak Velocity: 3.01 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.174 mgd Peak Flow: 4.994 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P4 - 7
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/13/2021 to 12/20/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.66 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 41.56 in. Peak Level: 100.71 in. Min Level: 5.65 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.43 fps Peak Velocity: 4.96 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 1.637 mgd Peak Flow: 17.744 mgd Min Flow: 0.015 mgd | P4 - 8
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/20/2021 to 12/27/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.51 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 12.55 in. Peak Level: 80.90 in. Min Level: 5.45 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.76 fps Peak Velocity: 4.29 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 1.137 mgd Peak Flow: 27.095 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P4 - 9
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.44 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 14.38 in. Peak Level: 53.26 in. Min Level: 5.06 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.43 fps Peak Velocity: 4.73 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.413 mgd Peak Flow: 7.452 mgd Min Flow: 0.008 mgd | P4 - 10
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.44 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 14.38 in. Peak Level: 53.26 in. Min Level: 5.06 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.43 fps Peak Velocity: 4.73 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.413 mgd Peak Flow: 7.452 mgd Min Flow: 0.008 mgd | P4 - 10
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/3/2022 to 1/10/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.03 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 24.22 in. Peak Level: 68.33 in. Min Level: 4.69 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.14 fps Peak Velocity: 3.11 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.246 mgd Peak Flow: 6.672 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P4 - 11
P4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/10/2022 to 1/17/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14 1/15 1/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.27 in. Peak Level: 15.56 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.00 fps Peak Velocity: 0.02 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.000 mgd Peak Flow: 0.001 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P4 - 12
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site:

Location:

P5
Desolo dr btwn Arguello & Linda Mar
Storm Sewer Flow Monitoring 2021/2022
City of Pacifica
Vicinity Map: P5
Data Summary Report
December 06, 2021 - January 11, 2022
| P5 - 1
P5
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information MH ID: P5
Measured Pipe Diameter: 36 inches
ADWF: 0.00 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 26.46 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sanitary Map
Location: Desolo dr btwn Arguello & Linda
Mar
Rim Elevation (Earth): 4 feet
Plan View
Coordinates: 122.5011° W, 37.5944° N
Sediment: None
| P5 - 2
P5
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored East Influent Pipe
| P5 - 3
P5
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.0009.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend

0.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.0009.000
12/10
12/12
12/14
12/16
12/18
12/20
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/28
12/30
1/1
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 14.84 inchesAvg Daily Flow: 0.961 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 8.363 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.000 MGal | P5 - 4
P5
Flow Summary: 12/10/2021 to 1/11/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0005.000

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow ADWF

0.0005.000

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /hr)
Period Rainfall: 14.70 inches Period Avg Flow: 1.223 mgd Period Peak Flow: 26.460 mgd Period Min Flow: 0.001 mgd | P5 - 5
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/6/2021 to 12/13/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/6 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.78 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.04 in. Peak Level: 8.76 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.23 fps Peak Velocity: 4.10 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.260 mgd Peak Flow: 7.366 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P5 - 6
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/13/2021 to 12/20/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.95 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 4.24 in. Peak Level: 38.20 in. Min Level: 2.05 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.62 fps Peak Velocity: 7.23 fps Min Velocity: 0.34 fps Avg Flow: 2.242 mgd Peak Flow: 22.836 mgd Min Flow: 0.151 mgd | P5 - 7
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/20/2021 to 12/27/2021
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.49 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 3.90 in. Peak Level: 40.13 in. Min Level: 1.97 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.50 fps Peak Velocity: 7.00 fps Min Velocity: 0.18 fps Avg Flow: 1.892 mgd Peak Flow: 26.460 mgd Min Flow: 0.078 mgd | P5 - 8
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.73 in. Peak Level: 13.93 in. Min Level: 1.77 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.11 fps Peak Velocity: 4.11 fps Min Velocity: 0.32 fps Avg Flow: 0.857 mgd Peak Flow: 12.326 mgd Min Flow: 0.121 mgd | P5 - 9
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
12/27/2021 to 1/3/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.73 in. Peak Level: 13.93 in. Min Level: 1.77 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.11 fps Peak Velocity: 4.11 fps Min Velocity: 0.32 fps Avg Flow: 0.857 mgd Peak Flow: 12.326 mgd Min Flow: 0.121 mgd | P5 - 9
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/3/2022 to 1/10/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.15 inches Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.28 in. Peak Level: 11.52 in. Min Level: 1.72 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.72 fps Peak Velocity: 4.37 fps Min Velocity: 0.04 fps Avg Flow: 0.493 mgd Peak Flow: 10.678 mgd Min Flow: 0.017 mgd | P5 - 10
P5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/10/2022 to 1/17/2022
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 45.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 Vel oci ty (fps)
Vel

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 1/10 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14 1/15 1/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 0.48 in. Peak Level: 1.72 in. Min Level: 0.00 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.06 fps Peak Velocity: 0.25 fps Min Velocity: 0.00 fps Avg Flow: 0.022 mgd Peak Flow: 0.091 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | P5 - 11
APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix E

CALIBRATION SHEETS
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

STORM DRAIN CALIBRATION | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA P1 Storm Drain Calibration
Pipeline diameter: 42.5''
Area: 183 acres
Model Pipe ID: SD545
DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0 0.8
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/10 1/11 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Storm Drain Flow Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
STORM DRAIN CALIBRATION | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA P2 Storm Drain Calibration
Pipeline diameter: 45.5''
Area: 560 acres
Model Pipe ID: SD767
DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0 0.8
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/10 1/11 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Storm Drain Flow Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
STORM DRAIN CALIBRATION | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA P3 Storm Drain Calibration
Pipeline diameter: 47.75''
Area: 209 acres
Model Pipe ID: SD972
DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0 0.8
5 10
15 20
25 30
12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/10 1/11 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Storm Drain Flow Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
STORM DRAIN CALIBRATION | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA P4 Storm Drain Calibration
Pipeline diameter: 59.5''
Area: 221 acres
Model Pipe ID: SD2186
DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0 0.8
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/10 1/11 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Storm Drain Flow Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
STORM DRAIN CALIBRATION | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA P5 Storm Drain Calibration
Pipeline diameter: 48" width x 36" height''
Area: 99 acres
Model Pipe ID: SD1744
DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix F

CIP COST ESTIMATING DETAILS
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix G

CIP PROJECT DETAIL SHEETS
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: Monterey Road
Project ID(s): MR-1A, MR-1B, MR-1C, and MR-2
Project Type: Capacity
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 X l MR-1A. 2,020 feet of new 18-inch diameter pipe.

Category 2 l MR-1B. 40 feet of new 24-inch diameter pipe.

Category 3 l MR-1C. 750 feet of new 18-inch diameter pipe. l MR-2. 980 feet of new 15-inch diameter pipe.

Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $6,900,000
Project Description
As part of the stakeholder outreach, numerous drainage issues were reported in the vicinity of Monterey Road from Hickey Boulevard down to Highway 101. The drainage issues reported included severe flooding on Monterey Road and Nelson Avenue during large storm events, such as the October 2021 rainfall event, as issues within Big Inch Creak (including flooding and erosion concerns) behind the homes on Nelson Avenue and Monterey Road. This project includes the construction of a new 18-inch diameter and 30 inch diameter storm drain pipeline in Monterey Road. The 18-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 750-feet southeast of Hickey Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard. The proposed 30-inch diameter storm drain would extend from Hickey Boulevard west to the existing 30-inch storm drain just east of Waterford Street. 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.

Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.
l Monterey Road, between west of Fremont
Avenue and north of Manor Drive.
l Nelson Avenue, between west of Johnson
Avenue and Perry Avenue.

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: West Lower Linda Mar
Project ID(s): WLM-1, and WLM-2
Project Type: Capacity
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 X l WLM-1. 1,680 feet of new 36-inch diameter pipe.

Category 2 l WLM-2. 1,050 feet of new 30-inch diameter pipe.

Category 3
Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $5,200,000
Project Description
Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.

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 10-year and 50-year design storm events. The recommended improvement at this location is consistent with the recommended project included in the 2012 Storm Drainage System Master Plan. This project includes the installation of a new 36-inch pipeline from the inlet due west of Marvilla Place on Linda Mar Blvd, to the corner of Linda Mar Blvd and Highway 1. The 36-inch pipeline would continue along Highway 1 to the existing manhole at the northern corner of the Chevron gas station. And this project includes the installation of a new 30-inch pipeline from the corner of Peralta Road and Linda Mar Blvd, to the inlet located due west of Marvilla Place on Linda Mar Blvd. l Linda Mar Boulevard, west of Marvilla Place to
Highway 1.
l Linda Mar Boulevard, from Peralta Road to
inlet
located west of Marvilla Place.

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: Sharp Park
Project ID(s): SP-1A, SP-1B, SP-1C, and SP-2
Project Type: Capacity
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 X l SP-1. A new 55,000 gpm lift station.

Category 2 l SP-1B. 910 feet of 30-inch diameter force main.

Category 3 l SP-1C. A new outfall.
l SP-2. 70 feet of 21-inch diameter gravity pipe.

Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $6,000,000
Project Description
Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.

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. 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. 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.
l Intersection of Brighton Road and Palmetto
Avenue.
l Intersection of Clarendon Road and Lakeside
Avenue.

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: Edgemar Avenue
Project ID(s): EE-1, EE-2, EE-3, and EE-4
Project Type: Capacity and New Service
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 l EE-1. A new 55,000 gpm lift station.

Category 2 X l EE-2. 910 feet of 30-inch diameter force main.

Category 3 l EE-1C. A new outfall.
l EE-2. 70 feet of 21-inch diameter gravity pipe.

Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $5,000,000
Project Description
l Edgemar Avenue, between Avalon Drive and
Arroyo Drive.
l Intersection of Brighton Road and Palmetto
Avenue.

Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.

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. This project would replace the existing storm drain pipeline on Edgemar Avenue with a new 24-inch diameter storm drain pipeline.

It is recommended that a new system of 15-inch and 18-inch diameter storm drain pipelines be constructed on Edgemar Avenue , Avalon Drive, and Manor Drive to more efficiently convey runoff from the East Edgemar Bains to the proposed EE-1 project, thereby reducing the potential for future flooding in this area.

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: Rockaway Beach Avenue
Project ID(s): RW-1
Project Type: New Service
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 l RW-1. 360 feet of new gravity pipe.

Category 2
Category 3 X
Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $700,000
Project Description
l Rockaway Beach Avenue and Oddstad Way.

Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.

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. This nuisance water has led to very localized property damage, and creates a tripping hazard for residents that live on Rockaway Beach Avenue. 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.

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: Madeira Drive
Project ID(s): LM-1
Project Type: Capacity
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 l LM-1. 190 feet of new 30-inch diameter pipe.

Category 2
Category 3 X
Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $500,000
Project Description
l Maderia Drive, east of Capistrano Drive to San
Pedro Creek.

Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.

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. This project includes the construction of roughly 190-feet of new 30-inch storm drain from Madeira Drive to San Pedro Creek.

CIP PROJECT SHEET | STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE | CITY OF PACIFICA Project Name: Lauren Avenue
Project ID(s): V-1
Project Type: New Service
Project Detail
Project Prioritization Project Components
Category 1 l V-1. 700 feet of new 15-inch diameter pipe.

Category 2
Category 3 X
Project Location
Project Cost Summary
Total Capital Improvement Cost $1,200,000
Project Description
l Lauren Avenue south of Reina Del Mar Avenue.

Source: Cost estimates were developed by Freyer
and Lauretta and are Class 4 estimates and
defined by the AACE. Costs are presented in 2022
dollars.

City staff noted that there is currently no storm drain infrastructure on Lauren Avenue south of Reina Del Mar Avenue. 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.

APPENDICES | STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN | CITY OF PACIFICA Appendix H

FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2022

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐ͭ
City of Pacifica – Funding Source Summary
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority WaterInfrastructureFinance andInnovation Act(WIFIA)
EPA Loan
Financing mechanism for water, wastewater, stormwater, greeninfrastructure, energy efficiency projects, alternative water supply, aquiferrecharge, drought preventing/reduction/mitigation projects and acombination of projects secured by a common security thread whichprovides low interest rate financing for large dollar‐value water andwastewater projects. Projects must cost no less than ͈ͮͬ million or ͈ͱ million for small community projects (ͮͱ,ͬͬͬ or fewer) (projects can becombined and submitted as a group of projects) with the maximum amountof the loan not exceeding Ͱ͵ percent of the project costs. Maximum loanterm is ͯͱ years (including ͱ‐year repayment deferment). Interest rate isequal to the US Treasury rate of a similar maturity. Funds can be used tocover planning/design (retroactive) and construction activities. Applicationfees apply (average ͈ͮͬͬ,ͬͬͬ ‐ ͈ͯͬͬ,ͬͬͬ pending reviews and legalnegotiations). FY ͮͬͮͮ lending capacity is ͈ͱ.ͱ billion.Viable funding mechanism providing for Ͱ͵% of the project financingthrough low interest loans. Projects that can be completed within a ͱ‐Ͳ yearwindow, serve a similar purpose and will be repaid from the same revenuestream can be packaged as a group of projects under one loan.Link: https://www.epa.gov/wifia Letters of interest due startingon Sept. Ͳ, ͮͬͮͮ and acceptedon a rolling basis until all fundingis awarded (rolling applicationprocess).Email [email protected] Projects would need to be packagedtogether to meet program requirements ofminimum loan size >͈ͮͬM.

High Priority
WIFIA has a large loan capacity and fewer
restrictions on types of projects it funds. However,
the interest rate is higher the CWSRF program.

ContinuingAuthoritiesProgram
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
(Corps)
Grant
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) is a group of nine water resource related authorities contained in several different laws. The purpose of the CAP is to plan, design, and construct water resources projects of limited scope and complexity.Authorities most applicable to the City include:
 103 ‐ Beach erosion and hurricane and storm damage reduction  204 ‐ Beneficial uses of dredged material 205 – Flood damage reduction Specifics of each authority vary, but all require a planning study before construction can begin. With 103 and 205, the Corps pays for $100,000 of study and cost is shared 50/50 beyond that. With 204, the Corps pays for 100% of the study. Construction cost is a 65% Corps and 35% non‐federal.

The federal limit per project is $10 million, including study.

Link:https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/P%20and%20Programs/C ap%20Production%20Center/Factsheet_CAP_Resilience_Section205.pdf?ver=2020‐07‐30‐134820‐030 City must submit written request
by letter.Contact Tom Kendall, (Ͱͭͱ) ͱͬͯ‐
Ͳʹͮͮ [email protected].
mil
City must first engage in a planning study
with the Corps, which would increase costs
and delay construction plans.

Low Priority
. Projects don’t match authority criteria well.

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐ͮ
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority Section ͮͭ͵:EnvironmentalInfrastructureProgram
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
(Corps)
Grant
Section 219 authorizes the Corps to provide assistance to non‐Federalinterests (local communities, water districts, sanitation districts, etc.) forcarrying out water‐related environmental infrastructure and resourceprotection and development projects.Program requires a cost share of ͳͱ% to ͮͱ% of Federal to Non‐Federal.The application is a two‐step process with Congressional authorizationrequired followed by appropriation of funds.Link: https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/ Recommended discussion withTom Kendall, (Ͱͭͱ) ͱͬͯ‐Ͳʹͮͮ [email protected] Congresswoman JackieSpeier, California’s ͭͰthCongressional District, fordiscussion of potentialappropriation.https://speier.house.gov/appropriations‐request The Corps must have an authorization from
Congress to begin a project or study.

Funding would allow for Corps assistance
but does not require a planning study.

Low Priority
CooperativeWatershedManagementProgram
U.S. Bureau
of
Reclamation
Grant
Funding for watershed group development, restoration planning, and management project design (Phase I) and implementation (Phase 2). A watershed group is a self‐sustaining, non‐regulatory, consensus‐based group that is composed of a diverse array of stakeholders of private property owners, non‐profit organizations, Federal, state, or local agencies, and tribes. Program has funded stormwater projects in the past.

Past application window ran Jan. – March, 2022. Maximum grant of $200,000.

Contact Program Coordinator,
Avra Morgan at ͯͬͯ‐ͰͰͱ‐ͮ͵ͬͲ.

Must include collaboration of watershed
stakeholders.

Not Eligible
Program is for watershed‐based projects and
requires a diverse array of partners.

Building ResilientInfrastructure andCommunities(BRIC)
FEMA and
California
Office of
Emergency
Services (Cal
OES)
Grant
FEMA pre‐disaster hazard mitigation program to incentivize new,innovative, large infrastructure projects that build resilient communitiesand reduce risks from hazards. Stormwater projects may be funded,provided project will protect community against future disasters, i.e.flooding.Total program funding is ͈ͮ.ͭ billion for FY ͮͬͮͮ. ͈ͱͬ million cap perproject. Project must be included in a FEMA‐approved Hazard MitigationPlan and project needs to comply with ͮͬͭʹ and ͮͬͮͭ InternationalBuilding Codes. Program requires a cost share of ͳͱ% to ͮͱ% of Federal toNon‐Federal.Links: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office‐of‐the‐director/operations/recovery‐directorate/hazard‐mitigation/bric/https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building‐resilient‐infrastructure‐communities ͮͬͮͮ deadlines past. Funding willreopen in ͮͬͮͯ.Contact [email protected] Project must be included in a FEMA‐approved Hazard Mitigation Plan andproject needs to comply with ͮͬͭʹ and ͮͬͮͭ International Building Codes.

Low Priority
Projects must increase resiliency of system. Highly
competitive program.

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐ͯ
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA)
Grants
FEMA and
California
Office of
Emergency
Services (Cal
OES)
Grant
Federal funds available to reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to states, local communities, and tribes and territories. Buildings and structures must be insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). ͈ʹͬͬ million available nationwide with ͈ͯͰͬ million available for Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects, including stormwater management. Cap of ͈ͱͬ million. Local cost share of ͮͱ%, ͭͬ% and ͬ% based on repetitive loss and social vulnerability.Eligible for Prepare California Match, which provides local match (ͮͱ% , ͭͬ% non‐federal cost share) to qualified entities for competitive and project scoping activities.
ͮͬͮͮ deadlines past.

Funding will reopen in Fall ͮͬͮͯ.

Contact [email protected]
Project benefits NFIP‐insured properties,supporting documentation on proposedproject boundary, benefiting area, and active NFIP Policies.Project must be included in a FEMA approved localHhazard Mitigation Plan.

Medium Priority
Grants are less competitive than BRIC to secure,
but current year deadlines have passed.

Clean Water StateRevolving Fund(CWSRF)
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(Water
Boards)
Loan/Grant
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program provides low‐interestloans to eligible entities for a wide range of wastewater and storm waterprojects that protect surface water and groundwater resources.Program Eligibility (Including, but not limited to)  Publicly owned wastewater treatment construction, repair or replacement;
 Implementation of a non‐point source management plan; Decentralized systems treating municipal or domestic sewage; Reducing, treating, or managing stormwater; Reducing demand to publicly owned works through conservation; Watershed projects; Reducing energy consumption Projects for reusing or recycling wastewater or stormwater; Increasing security at publicly owned treatment works Loan rate is ½ most recent State General Obligation (GO) Bond Rate attime of approval. Terms up to ͯͬ years. Principal Forgiveness (PF) may beavailable to disadvantaged borrowers or borrowers that incorporatesustainability into projects. The state will have ͈ͭͳͳ to commit to PF inFYͮͮ‐ͮͯ.* Any CWSRF eligible project that implements a process, material,technique, or technology to mitigate stormwater runoff is eligible for PF.For projects that mitigate stormwater runoff that also contribute to watersupply resiliency, ͱͬ percent (ͱͬ%) of total eligible costs up to ͈ͱ.ͬ millionin PF. For feasibility and planning studies to identify stormwater mitigationprojects capable of contributing to water supply resiliency ͳͱ percent (ͳͱ%)of total eligible costs up to a maximum of ͈ͱͬͬ,ͬͬͬ. A maximum of ͈ͮͬ million is available for these projects and studies.

Applications accepted year‐round via portal (FAAST), emailand hard [email protected] or (͵ͭͲ) ͯͮͳ‐͵͵ͳʹ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/ Projects are evaluated and ranked based onthe level of water quality protectionachieved.Project will be scored and prioritized basedin part on project’s readiness to beingconstruction. If plans are greater than Ͱ͵%complete on December ͯͭ, then the projectwill receive ͭ “construction readiness point.”If greater than ʹ͵% complete on Decemberͯͭ, then ͮ points are given. It less than ͱͬ%,no points are given.

High Priority
PF funding is limited for stormwater projects and
provided on a first come, first served basis.

Applying early and with at least Ͱ͵% of plans
completed is ideal.

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐Ͱ
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority Small Community
CleanWater/Wastewater(SCWW) Funding
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(Water
Boards)
Loan/Grant
Part of CWSRF, this program provides low‐interest loans, grants, and principal forgiveness to small, disadvantaged communities forplanning/design and construction of projects that restore and maintain water quality in the state.

A disadvantaged community (DAC) has a median household income (MHI) < ʹͬ
% statewide MHI.

A small community is < or equal to ͮͬ,ͬͬͬ people.

Small communities can get ͱͬ
% principal forgiveness. Small DACs can get
ͭͬͬ%. Small non‐DAC and DAC septic‐to‐sewer conversions eligible for up to ͈ͭͳͱ,ͬͬͬ per household.
͈ʹͬͳ million available in FYͮͮ‐ͮͯ. Project must start construction by spring ͮͬͮͰ and complete construction by the end of ͮͬͮͱ.

Rolling application cycle for
[email protected]
a.gov or (͵ͭͲ) ͯͮͳ‐͵͵ͳʹ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/docs/ww‐grant‐fact‐sheet.pdf Community must be considered small and
disadvantaged to qualify for this program.

Not Eligible
The City’s community demographics are not a
good fit for the program.

Nonpoint SourceGrant Program
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(Water
Boards)
Grant
The Nonpoint Source Grant Program seeks proposals for projects thatreduce runoff of pollution to waters of the state, such as agriculturalprojects that reduce pesticide and nutrient runoff, improvement ordecommission of dirt roads to reduce erosion and sediment runoff,streambank stabilization to reduce erosion, marina programs to reducetoxic discharges from anti‐fouling paints on boats, and infrastructureimprovements for ranching and livestock operations to reduce erosion andrunoff of nutrients and pathogens.Approximately ͈Ͳ million was available in funding in ͮͬͮͮ. Applications arenow closed, but will most likely reopen in spring, ͮͬͮͯ.

Contact Michael Hanks, Div. ofWater Quality by email [email protected] or phone at (͵ͭͲ) ͯͰͭ‐ ͱͱͱʹ.

Not Eligible
The City’s projects do not fit within program’s goal
of reducing pollution and erosion.

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐ͱ
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority Sewer Overflowand StormwaterReuse MunicipalGrants (OSG)Program EPA and State
Water
Resources
Control Board
(Water
Boards)
Grant
Reauthorization of EPA’s OSG grant program, which serves to provide funding for the planning, design, or construction of critical stormwater infrastructure projects in communities including combined sewer overflows (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). Grants will be awarded to states, which will then provide sub‐awards to eligible entities for projects that address infrastructure needs for CSOs, SSOs, and stormwatermanagement. States are required to prioritize funding projects for communities that are financially distressed, have a long‐term municipal CSO or SSO control plan, or for projects that have requested a grant on their CWSRF Intended Use Plan. Program budget to provide $280 million annually for the fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

California’s allotment from the OSG program is 10.6% of the nationwide federal appropriations. Based on the federal appropriations for 2020, 2021, and 2022, California will be eligible to apply for and receive grant funds of approximately $10‐12 million.

Funds have been allocated to 3 projects in FY22, but approximately $10 million is expected next fiscal year.
$5 million cap, with 10% match for small, severely DAC; 20% for small DAC; and 50% for others.

Link: https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/sewer‐overflow‐and‐stormwater‐reuse‐ municipal‐grants‐program
Discuss project with WaterBoards in December or January.

[email protected]
.gov
High Priority
Funding for the program is small, but the City is a
good fit for the program’s goals. Funding
appropriations anticipated to increase in future
years.

Storm WaterGrant Program
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(Water
Boards)
Grant
Funds for multi‐benefit storm water management projects including greeninfrastructure, rainwater and storm water capture projects and stormwater treatment facilities. Storm Water Resource Plans, or functionallyequivalent plan(s), are required to obtain grant funds for storm water anddry weather capture projectsApproximately $200 million in funds were provided by Proposition 1. Allavailable funding has been distributed. Applications are closed.

[email protected]
Future Priority.

City’s Projects are eligible, however program is no
longer accepting new applications but may reopen
at a later date pending appropriations.

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐Ͳ
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority IntegratedRegional WaterManagementGrant Programs
(IRWM)
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(Water
Boards)
Grant
The Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program is a voluntary statewide planning and implementation program designed to incentivize regional collaboration among multiple water agencies towardsthe implementation of multi‐benefit projects. The IRWM offers grant funding to IRWM groups for projects that support integrated regional water management planning and implementation, optimize water supply and reliability, protect or improve water quality, and enhance ecosystems.

Recent grants funded by Proposition ͭ and ʹͰ.

No IRWM grant programs are currently open for stormwater projects.

SWRCB anticipates just ͈ͳ to ͈͵ million to be allocated for FYͮͮ‐ͮͯ by the EPA, enough for ͮ or ͯ projects.Link: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/IRWM‐Grant‐ Programs
No current deadlines. Contact
[email protected] Project must be a part of an accepted IRWM region. Project is eligible, however IRWM program funding has been fully allocated, with no new funds anticipated.

CommunityDevelopmentBlock Grant(CDBG)
California
Department
of Housing
and
Community
Development
Grant
HUD‐awarded state funds for local projects. Available to localgovernments, counties and municipalities. Eligible to fund stormwater andgreen infrastructure because these projects can create jobs, increaseeconomic activity, and increase property values.CDBG funds are provided as grants to non‐entitlement jurisdictions. Grantscan vary based on annual allocations and activity limits. Must address oneof three national objectives:
 Benefit to low‐ and moderate‐income persons Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight, or To meet an urgent need Link: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community‐development‐block‐grant‐program Guidelines are being updated.

Not Eligible
The City’s community demographics are not a
good fit for the program.

DRAFT | NOVEMBER ͮͬͮͮ | H‐ͳ
Program Agency Type Description Deadlines/Next Steps Constraints Priority Coastal WatershedFlood Risk
ReductionProgram
Department
of Water
Resources
(DWR)
Grant
Program established in 2017 and funds projects in coastal areas that focus on multi‐benefit flood risk reduction. These projects will:
 Address flood risk and public safety
 Enhance coastal ecosystems, including fish and wildlife habitat enhancement
 Promote natural resources stewardship and public access corridors
Eligible projects must be in areas that intersect the California Coast or San Francisco Bay. $27 million in funding is available for the program until 2024. $23.9 million awarded in grant funding in July 2021 .

Link: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Coastal‐ Watershed‐Flood‐Risk‐Reduction
No planned deadlines upcoming.

Contact Ke Zhong
at [email protected]
Sami Nall, Program Manager,
at [email protected]
Future Priority
Current funds have been allocated. If the
Legislature places new funds into the program,
this program could be a good opportunity for the
City.

FloodplainManagement,Protection andRisk Awareness(FMPRA) GrantProgram Department
of Water
Resources
(DWR)
Grant
Established in 2019, the program supports local agency efforts to preparefor flooding by providing financial assistance for flood risk reductionactivities related to stormwater flooding, mudslides, and flash floods.DWR awarded $50.4 million in for the five planning and monitoring and 13implementation projects in 2022. Applications are currently closed.Link: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Flood‐Management‐Protection‐Risk‐Awareness‐Program No planned deadlines upcoming.Contact [email protected] Low Priority
Based on City’s project types and goals of the
grant program, there is a low probability of a
successful award.

Water and Waste
Disposal Loans
and Grants
California/
USDA Rural
Development
Loan/Grant
Funding for clean and reliable drinking water systems, sanitary sewage disposal, sanitary solid waste disposal, and stormwater drainage to households and businesses in eligible rural areas with populations of ͭͬ,ͬͬͬ or less. Most state and local governmental entities, nonprofits and tribes are eligible.

Up to Ͱͬ‐year payback period, interest rates, based on the need for the project and the median household income of the area to be served. If funds are available, a grant may be combined with a loan if necessary to keep user costs reasonable.Links: https://www.rd.usda.gov/ca https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs‐services/water‐environmental‐programs/water‐waste‐disposal‐loan‐grant‐program/ca Applications accepted on an on‐
going basis.

Contact Luis Andrade; WaterEnvironmental Program Director (ͳͲͬ) ͯͱͱ‐ͮͮͬʹ ext. ͭͬʹ [email protected]
All facilities receiving federal financing must
be used for a public purpose.Partnerships with other federal, state, local, private and nonprofit entities that offer
financial assistance are encouraged.

Projects must be financially sustainable.

Not eligible
City demographics do not match program goals.

Pacifica City CouncilDecember 12, 2022

Pacifica City Council
December 12, 2022