HomeMy WebLinkAboutApndx I_Municipal Services Assessment
APPENDIX I
MUNICIPAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT
2017 O YSTER P OINT
S PECIFIC P LAN U PDATE
MUNICIPAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT
DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared for:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, PLANNING DIVISION
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Prepared by:
1 KAISER PLAZA
SUITE 1150
OAKLAND, CA 94612
NOVEMBER 2017
2017 O YSTER P OINT S PECIFIC P LAN U PDATE
MUNICIPAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT
DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared for:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, PLANNING DIVISION
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Prepared by:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
1 KAISER PLAZA
SUITE 1150
OAKLAND, CA 94612
NOVEMBER 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope of Report ......................................................................................................... 1
2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Proposal Background ................................................ 1
PART 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
2.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Response ............................................................................ 7
2.2 Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Parks and Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Schools ......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Libraries ........................................................................................................................................ 13
2.6 Childcare Facilities .................................................................................................................... 14
2.7 Solid Waste Facilities ................................................................................................................. 16
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
3.1 Water Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Wastewater Collection, Conveyance, and Treatment ..................................................... 23
3.3 Storm Drainage .......................................................................................................................... 29
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: DRY UTILITIES
4.1 Electricity/Natural Gas and Energy ........................................................................................ 33
4.2 Telecommunications ................................................................................................................. 33
PART 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Response .......................................................................... 34
5.2 Law Enforcement ...................................................................................................................... 36
5.3 Parks and Recreation Facilities ............................................................................................... 37
5.4 Schools ......................................................................................................................................... 37
5.5 Libraries ........................................................................................................................................ 39
5.6 Childcare Facilities .................................................................................................................... 39
5.7 Solid Waste Facilities ................................................................................................................. 40
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
6.1 Water Distribution Infrastructure.............................................................................................. 43
6.2 Wastewater Collection, Conveyance, and Treatment ..................................................... 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment City of South San Francisco
Draft Report November 2017
ii
6.3 Storm Drainage Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 51
7.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DRY UTILITIES
4.1 Electricity/Natural Gas and Energy ........................................................................................ 55
4.2 Telecommunications ................................................................................................................. 55
8.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 57
9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 61
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC SERVICES DEMAND ESTIMATES TABLES
APPENDIX B: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
iii
TABLES
Table 1 Approved 2011 OPSP/Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Land Use
Development Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 2
Table 2 South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Facilities .................................................................. 9
Table 3 South San Francisco Unified School District Enrollment and
Capacity by School ........................................................................................................................ 12
Table 4 South San Francisco Childcare Facilities ...................................................................................... 14
Table 5 Existing OPSP Planning Area Water Distribution System............................................................. 19
Table 6 Existing OPSP Planning Area Sewer Network ............................................................................... 27
Table 7 Existing Gravity Sewer Network from OPSP Planning Area to the WQCP .............................. 27
Table 8 Existing Force Sewer Netwook from OPSP Planning Area to the WQCP ................................ 27
Table 9 Existing Estimated Wastewater Flows in OPSP Planning Area .................................................. 28
Table 10 WQCP Projected Wastewater Flow ............................................................................................ 29
Table 11 Estimate of Students Generated by the Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
and Enrollment/Capacity Comparison ....................................................................................... 38
FIGURES
Figure 1Approved 2011 OPSP ......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Proposed 2017 OPSP Update .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 OPSP Planning Area Existing Water Distribution System............................................................ 21
Figure 4 OPSP Planning Area Existing Wastewater Collection System .................................................. 25
Figure 5 OPSP Planning Area Existing Stormwater Drainage System .................................................... 31
Figure 6 Minimum Required Water Distribution Pipe Diameters ............................................................. 45
Figure 7 Minimum Required Wastewater Pipe Diameters ....................................................................... 49
Figure 8 Changes in Impervious Surface .................................................................................................... 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment City of South San Francisco
Draft Report November 2017
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of South San Francisco has received an application proposing revisions to the Oyster Point
Specific Plan, which was approved by the City Council in 2011 (2011 OPSP). The proposed revisions
include a mixed-use residential and retail component that was not part of the original 2011 OPSP
and a reduction in office/research and development (R&D) square footage. The proposed new
plan is referred to as the 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update (2017 OPSP Update).
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT
Infrastructure and public services needs were developed for the approved 2011 OPSP, and the
results were incorporated into an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2011 OPSP (Lamphier-
Gregory 2011). With the revised proposal, the addition of the residential component would result in
different public services needs and infrastructure demand. The City has determined that an
updated municipal services assessment is needed to develop a needs assessment and cost
estimate for the necessary infrastructure and public services for the 2017 OPSP Update. Eventually,
the City will seek a tax financing mechanism for future projects to pay for their fair share of those
services, and the municipal services assessment and cost estimate will be the basis for that. Because
the proposed 2017 OPSP Update will amend the approved 2011 OPSP, the City has determined that
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be required. This
existing conditions report and its associated needs assessment will be incorporated into a
Subsequent EIR for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update for the impact analysis. This municipal services
assessment may be used in tandem with the City’s Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update,
which contains detailed information about City services and associated development impact fees.
The approach to the municipal services assessment consists of two parts: an existing conditions
assessment, which presents up-to-date information and data about municipal services available
to the OPSP planning area; and a needs assessment. This report addresses the following services
and utilities: fire and emergency response, law enforcement, parks and recreation facilities,
schools, libraries, childcare facilities, solid waste facilities; water, wastewater, and storm drainage
utilities; and dry utilities (natural gas and electricity).
Information about existing conditions was compiled from city, state, and service provider
documents and websites and direct communication with City staff and service providers. Sources
of information are listed in Section 9.0. The needs assessment portion of this study describes public
services and utilities/infrastructure demand associated with the 2017 OPSP Update, as well as a
comparison between the demands under the original 2011 OPSP and the proposed 2017 OPSP
Update. In addition to the existing conditions description, this report also briefly describes how
existing conditions and relative demand as of 2011 were characterized in the EIR. The
methodology for estimating demand associated with each service and utility is presented in
Section 4.0, with supporting documentation in Appendix A (Public Services) and Appendix B
(Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Utilities).
2017 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE PROPOSAL BACKGROUND
The 2011 OPSP and related entitlements allowed for the development of 2.25 million square feet
of office/R&D uses across an approximately 41.4-acre developer-owned site to be built out in four
phases (ID, IID, IIID, and IVD). In addition, two phases of infrastructure and open space
improvements were approved throughout the site and across the adjacent 40-acre site owned
by the City of South San Francisco (Phases IC and IIC). A Precise Plan for Phases IC and ID,
consisting of approximately 508,000 square feet of office/R&D on 10 acres and infrastructure and
open space improvements on 25 acres, was approved at the same time as the 2011 OPSP and is
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
2
scheduled to start construction in late 2017. Phases IID through IVD provided for 1.75 million square
feet of office/R&D uses at a floor area ratio of 1.25 (calculated across the remaining 31.4 former
developer-owned acres) and new infrastructure and open space improvements. There are some
existing uses that were assumed to remain in the OPSP planning area. Figure 1 shows the land use
plan approved in 2011.
The 2017 OPSP Update revisions would modify Phases IIID and IVD of the approved 2011 OPSP and
related entitlements to include residential and retail uses. No changes are proposed to Phase IID,
but it is part of the 2017 OPSP Update application. Phase IID is proposed to include approximately
1.07 million square feet of office/R&D uses, including approximately 28,000 square feet of retail,
amenity, and/or flex-use space at a floor area ratio less than or equal to 1.25, parking, and
infrastructure. Phases IIID and IVD are a mixed-use program that would include approximately
1.472 million square feet consisting of 1,191 residential units and 22,000 square feet of retail,
amenity, and flex-use space, parking, and infrastructure. Public realm improvements for these two
phases would remain consistent with those in the approved 2011 OPSP. Figure 2 shows the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update land use plan.
Table 1 shows the differences in land use development assumptions between the approved 2011
OPSP and the proposed 2017 OPSP Update modifications.
TABLE 1
2011 OPSP/2017 OPSP UPDATE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
2011 OPSP Phase Approved 2011 OPSP
(New Development Only) a Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Phase ID Office/R&D: 508,000 sf
Open space
Office/R&D: 508,000 sf (under construction)
Open space
Phase IID Office/R&D: 1,750,000 sf
Retail: 0 sf
Open space
Office/R&D: 1,070,000 sf
Retail: 28,000 sf
Phase IIID Office/R&D: 0 sf
Residential: 1,472,000 sf (1,191 units)
Retail: 22,000 sf
Open space
Phase IVD
Total New Developed Space 2,250,000 sf 3,100,000 sf
Phases IC and IIC Open space and
infrastructure improvements
(includes 350-room hotel
and 40,000 sf
restaurant/retail)
Open space and infrastructure improvements
(no changes)
Changes Office/R&D: 680,000 sf decrease
Retail: 50,000 sf new
Residential: 1,472,000 sf (1,191 units) new
Source: City of South San Francisco 2017b
Notes: a. Does not include existing uses to remain. sf = square feet
Phases IID, IIID, and IVD require Precise Plans that outline the detailed design of land uses and
related improvements. In April 2017, the project applicant submitted a Precise Plan for Phase IIID-
A, which consists of 480 residential units in multistory buildings with ground-floor neighborhood-
serving commercial space and associated off-street parking.
FIGURE 1Approved 2011 OPSP
Phase IV - Approved Land UseR&D - 310,200 (sf) Office - 206,800 (sf)Open space
Phase III - Approved Land UseR&D - 315,000 (sf)Office - 210,000 (sf) Open SpacePhase III - Approved Land UseR&D - 420,000 (sf) Office - 280,000 (sf)
Phase I - Approved Land UseR&D - 304,800 (sf)Office - 203,200 (sf)Commerical - 10,000 (sf)
Future Hotel - Approved Land UseHotel - 350 RoomsRetail/Restaurant - 40,000 (sf)
Total Square-Footage (sf) for Oyster PointSpecific Plan Phases: 2,300,000
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Future H otel
Phase IV
Open Space
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\Figure_1.mxd (8/22/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
Oyster Point
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Future Hotel
Open Space
FIGURE 2Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Phase IC
Phase IIC
Phase ID
Phase IID
Phase IIID and Phase IVD
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\ProposedOPD.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Leg en d
Oyster Point Specific Plan
Phase IC
Phase ID
Phase IIC
Phase IID
Phase IIID and Phase IVD
Infrastructure and Open Space - Phase II, III, IVD
Phase IIID and Phase IVD - Proposed Land UseResidential Multifamily Units - 1,191Retail - 22,000 (sf)
Phase IC - Approved Land U seHotel - 350 RoomsRetail/Restaurant - 40,000 (sf)
Phase IIC - Proposed Land UseCity Visioning Process Underway
Phase ID - Approved Land UseR&D - 304,800 (sf)Office - 203,200 (sf)Commerical - 10,000 (sf)
Phase IID - Proposed Land UseR&D/Office - 1,042,000 (sf)Retail - 28,000 (sf)
Infrastructure and Open Space - Phase II, III, IVD
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
7
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
2.1 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Existing Conditions
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides the following services to the residents of
the City of South San Francisco: fire prevention, Municipal Code enforcement, fire suppression,
emergency medical services (advanced life support and nonemergency basic life support
ambulance transportation), urban search and rescue, hazardous materials services, public
education, disaster preparedness, and marine search and rescue services. The SSFFD also works in
conjunction with the City’s Economic and Community Development Department to ensure that all
new construction and remodels are built in compliance with local and state building and fire codes
as well as include the provision of adequate emergency access and on-site fire protection measures.
The SSFFD staffing consists of emergency response, fire prevention, and administrative personnel,
for a total of 87 full-time equivalent and 5.68 hourly and contract employees (City of South San
Francisco 2016: E-37). There are a minimum of 20 on-duty emergency response personnel
(firefighters) staffing each of the three shifts (Magallanes 2017). The General Plan Health and
Safety Element does not identify a personnel-to-service population target ratio.
There are five SSFFD fire stations strategically located throughout the city to provide prompt
assistance to area residential and business communities. The closest fire station that serves the
OPSP planning area is Station No. 62, located at 249 Harbor Way, which is approximately 7,600
square feet, has three apparatus bays and will accommodate a crew of four on-duty personnel.
Response time is defined as the time that elapses between the moment a call is received by dispatch
and the moment when the first unit assigned to the call arrives at the scene. The goal is to arrive at
emergency incidents within seven minutes after a 9-1-1 call is received, which includes a four-minute
travel time. The SSFFD is looking for alternative sites for Station No. 62 in the East of 101 Area because
it has difficulty meeting its response goal in the northern and eastern parts of the city east of US 101
(Magallanes 2017).
Response times, staffing, and equipment contribute to the Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating.
Insurance costs for property owners are based, in part, on an ISO rating. The ISO scale ranges from
1 to 10, with 1 representing the best service. The SSFFD rating is 3 (Magallanes 2017).
The City of South San Francisco has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
2016, to manage its mitigation of certain hazards and response to multidepartment and
multijurisdictional emergencies. The EOP defines the emergency management structure and
facilitates communication and coordination between all levels of the system and among all
responding departments and agencies. The City of South San Francisco utilizes the National
Incident Management System (NIMS), the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)
and the Incident Command System (ICS) to plan for and organize emergency incidents in the
City.
The City of South San Francisco is a participant in the San Mateo Agreement for Exchange of
Emergency Medical, Rescue and Fire Protection Services Automatic Aid and First Response. SSFFD
provides and receives automatic aid firefighting resources to deal with incidents in San Mateo
County as part of this countywide plan.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
8
The California Emergency Services Act mandates the use of the California Disaster and Civil
Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement as the standard form of agreement between jurisdictions.
State government is obligated to provide available resources to assist the City in emergencies;
however, responsibility for the negotiation and preparation of mutual aid agreements rests with
the local jurisdictions. Mutual aid agreements exist in law enforcement, fire services, medical and
public works, building and safety, and emergency management. The City of South San Francisco
is in Region II of the Office of Emergency Services Coastal Region. SSFFD is an active participant
in the California Fire Assistance Agreement for mutual aid resources, which is administered by the
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
2.2 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Existing Conditions
Law enforcement services provided by the South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD)
include response to emergency and nonemergency calls for assistance, routine patrol, traffic
enforcement, investigation of crime, parking control services, and community problem-solving.
The SSFPD Patrol Division is the primary provider of police services and covers the city on a 24-hour
basis. The Patrol Division is divided into six teams: two day-shift teams, two swing-shift teams, and
two grave-shift teams. Each team has a supervisor (sergeant), a team leader (corporal), and
several patrol officers. Officers work in a solo capacity—one officer per patrol vehicle.
The SSFPD provides a downtown bicycle patrol unit year-round. The police department also
maintains a detective bureau, canine unit, traffic division, school resource officers, community
policing division, planning and crime prevention division, tactical unit (SWAT), and neighborhood
response team. Police-related incidents occurring on the Caltrain station property are ultimately
handled by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department Transit Bureau.
As of 2016, the SSFPD had a total of 118 employees, with 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian positions
(City of South San Francisco 2016: E-42). The unsworn civilian personnel each hold specific
assignments, which include parking enforcement, police service technicians, dispatch, evidence
specialists, records management, information technology, and secretarial positions.
The SSFPD has one main station located at 33 Arroyo Drive (29,207 square feet). There is also a
substation located at 329 Miller Avenue (400 square feet); however, this facility is not always
occupied. As part of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, a new police headquarters
facility (39,250 square feet) is planned for construction in 2019.
Implementing Policy 8.1.I-2 of the General Plan Health and Safety Element seeks to maintain a
target ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents to ensure rapid and timely response to all
emergencies (City of South San Francisco 1999a: 8-25). As of fiscal year 2016-17, the current officer-
to-service population ratio for the SSFPD is approximately 1.03 officers per 1,000 service population.
In 2016, the SSFPD response times to Priority 1 (emergency) calls averaged 3:59 minutes and to
nonemergency calls averaged 6:03 minutes. These response times are considered acceptable.
There is no standard against which they are measured, nor is there any obligated standard to
measure against (Rudis 2017).
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
9
2.3 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Existing Conditions
Parks and recreational open spaces in South San Francisco offer a broad range of opportunities
for both active recreation, such as organized or informal sports, and passive recreation. The city’s
developed park facilities, which are managed by the Parks and Recreation Department, include
community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks. Open space areas include shoreline open
space on San Francisco Bay and at Sign Hill Park. In addition, the San Bruno Mountain State and
County Park—a major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmark—lies directly
north of the city. The City also operates several recreational facilities, including three recreation
centers, one gymnasium, one indoor swimming pool, three preschool sites, one senior center, and
before- and after-school day care programs on six elementary school campuses. Table 2 lists the
park and recreational facilities in the city, which total 251.2 acres.1
The City maintains a joint powers agreement with the South San Francisco Unified School District
(SSFUSD), which provides for the public use of school facilities across a total of 95.8 acres of school
district land. Not all of the school sites are currently available for public use. Two school sites,
Southwood and Hillside Athletic Fields, are included in Table 2 as neighborhood parks, because
although they are owned by the SSFUSD, which retains discretion regarding their disposition, they
are currently programmed and maintained by the City exclusively for public use (City of South
San Francisco 2015: 101).
As of fiscal year 2015–16, there were 72 full-time equivalent, 4.32 part-time, and 57.84 hourly
employees, which included administrative personnel, maintenance staff, and recreation
specialists. The adopted 2016–17 CIP budget provides for an additional 3.03 full-time equivalent
staff (City of South San Francisco 2016: E-63).
TABLE 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Facility Name Address Acres
Community, Neighborhood, and Mini Parks
Alta Loma Park 450 Camaritas 9.7
Avalon Memorial Lots Avalon & Valencia 1.4
Avalon Park Dorado Way and Old Country Way 2.4
Brentwood Park Rosewood & Briarwood 3.1
Buri Buri Park 200 block of Arroyo 6.0
Cal West Park 3700 block of Carter Drive 2.6
City Hall Playlot and Grounds Miller & Walnut 1.8
Clay Park Clay & Dundee 0.7
Cypress & Pine Playlot Cypress & Pine 0.3
Dundee Playlot Dundee & Mansfield 0.2
Elkwood Park Duval & Graystone 1.6
1 The total number of acres is as reported in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan (City of South San Francisco 2015).
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
10
TABLE 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Facility Name Address Acres
Francisco Terrace Playlot Terrace & S. Spruce 0.3
Gardiner Playlot Gardiner & Randolph 0.1
Hillside Athletic Field Hillside Boulevard 1.6
Irish Town Greens Airport & Armour 1.5
Jack Drago Park East Grand & Gateway 0.8
Newman & Gibbs Playlot Newman & Gibbs 0.2
Orange Memorial Park Orange & Tennis 28.0
Paradise Valley Recreation Center Park Hillside & Spruce 0.8
Paradise Valley Pocket Park Hillside Boulevard 1.1
Point San Bruno Park Forbes & DNA 1.9
Sellick Park Appian Way 7.1
Siebecker Playlot Tamarack & Elm 0.6
Southwood Park Southwood Drive 4.2
Terrabay Recreation Center Park 1121 South San Francisco Drive 3.4
Westborough Park Westborough & Galway 11.1
Wind Harp Grandview Drive 0.5
Zamora Park Zamora Drive 0.7
Subtotal 93.7
Specialty
Community Garden Commercial & Chestnut 0.6
Centennial Way Dog Park Memorial Drive 1.4
Orange Park Sculpture Garden Tennis Drive/Orange Memorial Park 0.0
Subtotal 2.0
Linear Parks
Centennial Way SSF BART – San Bruno BART 16.0
San Francisco Bay Trail Oyster Point 10.3
Sister Cities Park Between Orange & Spruce 1.7
Subtotal 28.0
TOTAL DEVELOPED PARKLAND 123.7
Open Space
Bayfront Linear Park Oyster Point 29.0
Oyster Point Marina Park Oyster Point Marina 4.7
Sign Hill Park Access – Poplar Avenue 44.7
TOTAL OPEN SPACE 78.4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
11
TABLE 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Facility Name Address Acres
Other
Common green areas Various locations 49.1
TOTAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 251.2
Source: City of South San Francisco 2015
Under Goal 2 of the City’s Parks & Recreation Master Plan, the City strives to provide park, trail, or
open space within a 5-minute walk (generally 0.25 mile) for every city resident. The City’s goal is
to have neighborhood parks within 0.75 mile of a neighborhood (City of South San Francisco 2015).
There are no community, neighborhood, or mini-park facilities within the OPSP planning area, but
Oyster Point Marina Park, an open space/special use facility, has walking trails, benches, picnic
areas, and marina-related services and is within 0.25 mile (City of South San Francisco 2015: 105).
The two closest parks are Wind Harp and Jack Drago Park (mini-parks) located over a mile from
the planning area, east of US Highway 101. All other facilities are west of US Highway 101.
Community parks, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, specialty parks, and linear parks collectively
provide approximately 1.9 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Combined with open
space and common green areas, there are approximately 3.9 acres of parks and open space
per 1,000 residents, which is greater than the General Plan standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000
residents. When school sites that currently have joint use facilities are included, the total
developed and open space combined acreage ratio increases to 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents
(City of South San Francisco 2015: 102).
Based on the siting goal noted above, the Parks & Recreation Master Plan noted that some areas
of the city are underserved (City of South San Francisco 2015: 105). As the city’s residential and
daytime (employment) population grow, the need for additional parks and open space will also
increase. According to the Parks & Recreation Master Plan, the City projects a need for 44.4 acres
of new parks by year 2030. Additionally, the increase in population of residents and employees will
increase demand for the use of City recreation facilities, many of which are currently operating at
capacity. A number of planned and potential locations for future parks are described in the Parks
& Recreation Master Plan, which could provide an additional 49 acres of parks and 40 acres of open
space, including expansion of Oyster Point Marina Park (City of South San Francisco 2015: 102).
The City’s ordinance as authorized by the Quimby Act (Municipal Code Chapter 19.24) requires
parkland dedication in proposed residential subdivisions or the payment of an in-lieu fee. In the
event the proposed residential subdivision is less than 50 parcels, the City may only require the
payment of an in-lieu fee. This fee requirement is a condition of approval of residential
development projects. The fees may only be used for acquiring land and developing new park
and recreation facilities or for rehabilitating and/or enhancing existing neighborhood parks,
community parks, and recreational facilities. The City’s Municipal Code also includes Chapter 8.67
“Parks and Recreation Impact Fee,” which requires payment of a fee for rental residential and
commercial projects.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
12
2.4 SCHOOLS
Existing Conditions
The SSFUSD administers all public schools in South San Francisco, as well as one elementary school
in San Bruno and two in Daly City. The SSFUSD operates nine elementary schools (serving grades K
through 5), three middle schools (serving grades 6 through 8), two high schools (serving grades 9
through 12), and one high school that provides adult and alternative education programs. The
OPSP planning area is in the attendance boundaries for Martin Elementary School, Parkway
Heights Middle School, and South San Francisco High School (italicized in Table 3).
Table 3 lists average enrollment and capacity by school and projections. Collectively, the K–12
facilities in school year 2016–17 had an enrollment of 8,860 students (4,051 elementary school,
1,983 middle school, and 2,723 high school). The total SSFUSD capacity is 12,600 students. No
schools are overcapacity, and the current utilization is 70.3 percent. There has been a steady but
slight decrease in enrollment districtwide since approval of the 2011 OPSP in 2011.
Slightly higher utilization is projected for 2022–23, at 71.5 percent. Enrollment is expected to
increase at Martin Elementary School, reaching 99 percent of capacity in the 2022–23 school year.
Parkway Heights Middle School and South San Francisco High School are both projected to
remain approximately 78 percent utilized in the 2022–23 school year (SchoolWorks 2017a). The
projections for 2022-23 assumed anticipated new residential units in projects west of US Highway
101. The projections do not include the proposed 2017 OPSP Update’s 1,191 multi-family residential
units.
TABLE 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY BY SCHOOL
School 2016–17 Enrollment 2016–17 through
2022–23 Capacity
2022–23 Projected
Enrollment
Buri Buri Elementary 598 909 567
Junipero Serra Elementary 307 459 307
Los Cerritos Elementary 299 429 350
Martin Elementary 436 555 549
Monte Verde Elementary 559 637 561
Ponderosa Elementary 428 589 430
Skyline Elementary 424 643 444
Spruce Elementary 590 840 602
Sunshine Gardens Elementary 410 715 439
Subtotal elementary 4,051 5,776 4,249
Alta Loma Middle School 687 853 664
Parkway Heights Middle School 630 1,199 643
Westborough Middle School 666 852 668
Subtotal middle school 1,983 2,904 1,975
El Camino High School 1,357 1,540 1,306
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
13
TABLE 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY BY SCHOOL
School 2016–17 Enrollment 2016–17 through
2022–23 Capacity
2022–23 Projected
Enrollment
South San Francisco High School 1,366 1,764 1,379
Subtotal high school 2,723 3,304 2,685
Baden (Continuation) High School 101 616 99
Community Day 2 0 2
Subtotal other 103 616 101
Total 8,860 12,600 9,010
Notes: Italics indicates school attendance area that includes the OPSP planning area.
Source: SchoolWorks 2017a
The SSFUSD does not place caps on enrollment at any of its schools and regulates school capacity
based on class size rather than school size. The standard for operation is 24 students per classroom
for grades K–3, 30 students per classroom for grades 4–5, and 28 students per class for grades 6–
12 (SchoolWorks 2017a). As enrollment increases, the SSFUSD brings modular units onto the school
property to maintain these standards. The SSFUSD reviews open enrollment/intradistrict transfer
requests and balances enrollments across school sites and grade levels.
Under the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs
associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. Fee proceeds may be
used for construction or renovation of schools. The fees are assessed based upon the proposed
square footage of residential, commercial/industrial, and/or parking structure uses. Development
impact fees are an essential source of revenue in the provision of additional school resources
needed for development. Project sponsors of future development in the SSFUSD must pay all
applicable development impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance to the
SSFUSD to cover additional school services required by the new development. The current fees
are $3.36 per residential square foot and $0.54 per commercial square foot (SSFUSD 2015).
2.5 LIBRARIES
Existing Conditions
The South San Francisco Library System is an independent city library system and also a member
of the Peninsula Library System, a consortium of city, county, and community college libraries in
San Mateo County providing access to the collections of all member libraries. The South San
Francisco Library System has two libraries and two literacy programs that serve the needs of South
San Francisco and San Mateo County residents. The Main Library is at 840 West Orange Avenue,
and the recently renovated Grand Avenue Branch Library is at 306 Walnut Avenue. The Main
Library is 24,000 square feet, and the Grand Avenue Branch is 11,060 square feet (Bernal-Silva
2017), for a total of approximately 35,000 square feet of library space (0.54 square feet per capita).
A new library (approximately 46,000 square feet) combined with a recreation center that would
replace the Main Library is planned for development in the Community Civic Campus project. This
will increase library space to approximately 57,000 square feet, or approximately 0.88 square feet
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
14
per capita based on 2016 population and 0.76 square feet per capita based on the City’s
population projection for 2040.2
Library visits have doubled in the past six years, from 234,854 in 2009–10 to more than a half million
in 2014–15. A goal of the library’s 2016–2020 strategic plan is completion of the planned new library
in the Community Civic Campus to meet increased demands for library programs and community
engagement (SSFPL 2016).
The South San Francisco Library System currently has a full-time equivalent staff of 39.26, consisting
of 22.00 full-time and 2.10 part-time regular paid staff, and 15.16 hourly staff (City of South San
Francisco 2016).
2.6 CHILDCARE FACILITIES
Existing Conditions
There are 28 childcare centers (facilities) in South San Francisco, which are listed in Table 4. Most
are privately operated, but the City operates facilities as well. Four of the facilities are east of US
Highway 101: Gateway Child Care Center, Genentech 2nd Generation [two facilities], and The
Early Years. None are in the OPSP planning area. There are also 68 family childcare homes (FCCH)
in the city. Not all of the spaces are open to the public; some may only be available to employees
(e.g., Genentech).
TABLE 4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CHILDCARE FACILITIES
Center (Facility) Name Address
Capacity
(age 0–2
years)
Capacity
(age 2–4
years)
Capacity
(age 5–
17 years)
All Souls Preschool 479 Miller Avenue 24
Bambini Montessori School SSF 301 El Camino Real 84
Building Kidz of SSF 600 Grand Avenue 19 54
CSSF PRD Little Steps Preschool 520 Tamarack Lane 20
CSSF PRD Buri Elementary School
After School Program 120 El Campo Drive 80
CSSF PRD Ponderosa Elementary
School After School Program 295 Ponderosa Road 120
CSSF PRD Siebecker Preschool 510 Elm Court 55
CSSF PRD Spruce Elementary School
After School Program 501 Spruce Avenue 30
CSSF PRD Westborough Preschool 2380 Galway Drive 59
CSSF REAL Los Cerritos Elementary
School After School Program 210 W. Orange Avenue 50
2 Residential population estimates from City of South San Francisco 2017a (Table 2.2): current = 64,585; 2040 (estimated) =
74,600.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
15
TABLE 4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CHILDCARE FACILITIES
Center (Facility) Name Address
Capacity
(age 0–2
years)
Capacity
(age 2–4
years)
Capacity
(age 5–
17 years)
CSSF REAL Martin Elementary School
After School Program 35 School Street 50
CSSF Monte Verde Elementary School 2551 St. Cloud Drive (San
Bruno) 200
Friends to Parents, Inc. 2525 Wexford Avenue 51 128
Gateway Child Care Center 559 Gateway Boulevard 36 75
Genentech 2nd Generation 850 Gateway Boulevard 72 182
Genentech 2nd Generation @ Allerton 444 Allerton Avenue 199 430 48
Hillside Christian Academy 1415 Hillside Boulevard 90 45
IHSD, Inc. – South San Francisco
Head Start Center 825 Southwood Drive 80
IHSD, Inc. – Baden Infant Center 825 Southwood Drive 8
Let’s Play in Spanish 800 Grand Avenue 45
Little Hugs Preschool 740-A Del Monte Avenue 36
Mills Montessori School 1400 Hillside Boulevard 120
PFS – Leo J. Ryan CDC (PS) 1200 Miller Avenue 72 72
R. W. Drake Preschool Center 609 Southwood Drive 80
SSFUSD Martin Child Development
Center 35 School Street 23
SSFUSD Children’s Center Preschool 530 Tamarack Lane 105
Study Buddies Preschool 230 S. Spruce Avenue 30
The Early Years 371 Allerton Avenue 90
Urban Sprouts Day School 1165 El Camino Real 30
Subtotal Childcare Centers 385 1,912 695
Family Childcare Homes (FCCH) 252 317
TOTAL* 637 2,229 695
Source: childcare center capacity: CDSS 2016; FCCH capacity: Brion Economics 2016
Notes:
* Brion Economics (2016: Table A-20) lists a total of 652 spaces for 0 to 2 years and 2,283 for 2 to 4 years, for a total of
2,935 spaces for the 0 to 4 years category, compared to 2,866 spaces in this table. Capacity data for each individual
facility was not provided in the Brion study to verify capacities used. Capacity data in the table are from CDSS 2016.
CSSF PRD – City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department
SSFUSD – South San Francisco Unified School District
In 2016, Brion Economics prepared a countywide needs assessment for the Child Care
Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, which provided detailed supply and demand
estimates for each city in the county. As of 2015, there was an estimated demand for 3,343 spaces
for children ages 0 to 4 years old, compared to an existing supply of 2,935 spaces in South San
Francisco. All childcare centers and FCCHs are at capacity. Currently, there is a shortage of 408
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
16
spaces for children 0 to 4 years old, with 75 percent of that shortage associated with the 2 to 4
years category (Brion Economics 2016: Table A-20). The Brion 2016 study did not provide estimates
for school-age children (5 or more years old).
In 2001, the City Council adopted a nexus fee study for an impact fee program for childcare
facilities. Under the Childcare Impact Fee Program, new development must fund its share of new
and expanded childcare facilities required at buildout of the city. The 2001 nexus study estimated
there would be a demand of 2,574 spaces requiring funding for children 0 to 4 years old by 2020.
It projected a demand of 1,914 new spaces requiring funding for school-age children and 296
spaces for special needs children (all ages) (Brion & Associates 2001: Table 5).
The City is in the process of updating its Development Impact Mitigation Fee program, which
includes childcare facilities. The 2001 nexus study and the current fee update, which is based on
the Brion Economics 2016 study, reach different conclusions regarding the number of childcare
spaces that would be needed in the city. As of the date of this report, the City had not approved
a new childcare facility mitigation fee, pending resolution of the supply and demand estimates.
2.7 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Existing Conditions
The South San Francisco Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of South San Francisco as
the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the city. The Scavenger
Company transports all solid waste from the study area to the Blue Line Material Recovery
Facility/Transfer Site (MRF/TS). The MRF/TS has a permitted tonnage of 2,000 tons per day and
operates an anaerobic digestion and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility. The system
transforms food and green waste into clean renewable CNG fuel for its vehicles and compost. In
2015, the facility separated out 55,565 tons of material for recycling or composting for use as
biomass (South San Francisco Scavenger Company n.d.).
Once the usable materials have been separated at the MRF/TS, the remaining solid waste is then
transported to a landfill. In 2015, solid waste generated in South San Francisco and disposed of in
landfills totaled approximately 96,600 tons. Of that amount, almost 98 percent was transported to two
landfills: Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay, which received over
81,000 tons from South San Francisco in 2015, and Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2017).
Ox Mountain is the only active landfill in San Mateo County. Browning-Ferris Industries operates the
landfill, which is permitted by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) to receive 3,598 tons per day, with a total maximum permitted capacity of 69 million
cubic yards. In 2016, the landfill received, on average, between 1,500 and 2,000 tons per day
(Navarro 2017). As of 2015, the landfill’s remaining capacity was 22.18 million cubic yards
(CalRecycle 2017).3 Although the existing permit expires in 2018, this expiration does not indicate the
landfill would close and would no longer accept waste after 2018. Solid waste facility permits are
periodically renewed, which includes estimates of remaining capacity and landfill life. The Corinda
Los Trancos permit is undergoing such review, but it has not yet been completed. New estimates for
capacity and potential closure date will be indicated in the revised permit (Navarro 2017).
The Newby Island Landfill, which is located in Santa Clara County, is permitted to accept 4,000
tons per day and has a permitted capacity of 57,500,000 cubic yards, with an estimated
3 A cubic yard of uncompacted municipal solid waste is equivalent to approximately 0.22 tons (440 pounds); a cubic yard
of compacted-in-place in a landfill is equivalent to approximately 0.75 tons (1,500 pounds) (CalRecycle 2015).
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
17
remaining capacity of 21,200,000 cubic yards. The estimated closure date for the Newby Island
Landfill is 2041 (CalRecycle 2017).
California Assembly Bill (AB) 341 requires businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste
per week to recycle. The law also applies to multi-family dwellings of five units or more, regardless
of the amount of waste generated. AB 1826 requires all businesses and multi-family dwellings of
five units or more to subscribe to organics recycling service. The City of South San Francisco has
implemented these requirements through programs run by the South San Francisco Scavenger
Company.
In 2015, the latest year for which data are available, the average per capita residential disposal
rate in South San Francisco was 6.9 pounds per day, which meets South San Francisco’s target
identified by CalRecycle of 6.9 pounds per day. For the employment sector, the average disposal
rate was 9.3 pounds per employee, which did not meet the 9.0 pounds per day per employee
target. By comparison, when the 2011 OPSP was approved in 2011, the disposal rates for the two
categories were slightly lower (6.0 and 8.7, respectively), which did meet the targets (CalRecycle
2017).
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
18
This page intentionally left blank.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
19
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
3.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION
Existing Conditions
Distribution Infrastructure
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) South San Francisco District (District) provides
potable water to the planning area through facilities owned and operated by the District. The
District’s overall water system includes 144 miles of pipeline, 12 storage tanks, 21 booster pumps,
and 5 groundwater wells. Figure 3 illustrates the approximate locations of the water distribution
system within the OPSP planning area. The existing water distribution system consists of 8-inch to
16-inch water mains and 4-inch to 8-inch water service connection pipes and approximately 66
water manholes and 26 fire hydrants. Table 5 lists the calculated linear footage of existing water
mains.
TABLE 5
EXISTING OPSP WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
8 4,494
12 5,363
16 728
Total Pipe Length 10,585
Water Supply
Cal Water’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) concluded that the South San
Francisco District has a sufficient water supply during years under normal conditions. However,
during one-year or multiyear droughts, shortfalls of up to 20 percent or more are projected. Under
such conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In recent drought
years, customers were asked to reduce their demand by 8 percent, as specified by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The South San Francisco District achieved a 20 percent reduction
based on June 2015 to March 2016 totals. Cal Water is also working toward increasing the water
supply portfolio for the South San Francisco District (Cal Water 2016).
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
20
This page intentionally left blank.
FIGURE 3OPSP Planning Area Existing Water Distribution System
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Water\GIS_Water\Water.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
Oyster Poin t Sp ecific Plan Bo unda ry
G!.Fire Hyd ran t
Ma nholePipe Diameter
4
6
8
12
16
Oyster Point Blvd
Eccles Ave
Gull Dr
M
arina Blvd
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
23
3.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, CONVEYANCE, AND TREATMENT
Existing Conditions
Wastewater Collection System
The City of South San Francisco maintains all of its sewer system facilities and infrastructure in
accordance with the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) per Waste Discharge Requirements
Order No. 2006-003 DWQ, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board, and Order No.
WQ 2013-0058-EXEC for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and Sanitary Systems.
The current plan is dated June 2014 and is regularly updated in accordance with regulatory
requirements.
The City funds sewer system operations, maintenance, and capital projects through four funding
revenues, as described in the 2014 SSMP:
1. Non-Major Governmental Funds: East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee Fund
2. Major Government Funds: Capital Improvement Fund
3. Proprietary Funds: Sewer Enterprise Fund
4. Non-Major Proprietary Funds: Sewer Capacity Charge Fund
The City of South San Francisco (2016) Adopted Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) – Sanitary Sewer Projects, Fiscal Year 2016–17, identifies 11 new proposed projects and the
continuation of 7 ongoing projects. Proposed CIP projects to improve South San Francisco’s
sanitary sewer infrastructure consist of the following:
Proposed New Project and Additional Appropriations – Sanitary Sewer
1. Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
2. Littlefield Avenue (South) Sanitary Sewer Sub Trunk Repair/Upgrade
3. WQCP Digester and Wet Weather Improvements Project (combined with ss1308)
4. Plant-Wide Industrial Re-Coating Program
5. Vactor-Sweeper Waste Receiving Station Improvement
6. Sewer Pump Station No. 9 Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Replacement
7. Water Quality Control Plant Maintenance Building Roof Replacement
8. Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade
9. Water Quality Control Plant Secondary Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 Rehabilitation
10. Water Quality Control Plan Effluent Storage Basin Liner Replacement
11. Water Quality Control Plan Switchgear and Cogeneration Controls Upgrades
Ongoing Sanitary Sewer Projects
1. Recycled Water Financial Feasibility Study
2. WQCP Solar Photovoltaic System
3. Water Quality Control Plant Flow Monitoring
4. Pump Station No. 4 Force Main Contingency Pipes Under Utah Avenue
5. WQCP Web-Based Monitoring Projects
6. Sodium Hypochlorite Storage Tank Replacement Project
There are no 2016–17 CIP sanitary sewer projects within the OPSP planning area; however,
proposed project 8 (Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade) will directly affect wastewater collection in the
OPSP planning area because the current pump station’s firm capacity would be exceeded by
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
24
proposed future project flows, per the 2011 OPSP EIR. The CIP does not list specific areas of
rehabilitation of proposed project 1. Proposed projects 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 will indirectly benefit
the 2011 OPSP because they will maintain and improve the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water
Quality Control Plant (WQCP). All ongoing projects may indirectly benefit the 2011 OPSP because
they also maintain and improve the WQCP as well as evaluate potential other uses of recycled
water from the plant.
Pump Station No. 1 is located within the OPSP planning area and conveys wastewater flow
through an 8-inch force main. The 12-inch force main connects to an 8-inch pipeline segment
near the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive. As described in the 2011 OPSP EIR,
a roadway realignment will be completed of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards. Because of the
realignment, Pump Station No. 1 will be abandoned and a new pump station will be constructed
within the OPSP planning area. This improvement is identified in the updated OPSP as a
component of Phases III and IV of the residential development (City of South San Francisco 2017b).
This pump station will include three wet-well submersible pumps, and a new 8-inch diameter force
main will connect to the existing 8-inch gravity segment located near the intersection of Oyster
Point Boulevard and Gull Drive.
Pump Station No. 2, located at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards, consists
of two 17-horsepower pumps with a combined capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute. Per the
Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan completed by Carollo
Engineers in January 2011, the firm and total capacities of Pump Station No. 2 are 1.44 million
gallons per day (mgd) and 2.88 mgd, respectively. Per the 2016–17 CIP, Pump Station No. 2 will be
upgraded to accommodate new growth in the Oyster Point area.
From Pump Station No. 2, the wastewater flow is conveyed through a system of pipelines ranging
in size from 12 inches to 27 inches before entering Pump Station No. 4, located near the
intersection of Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue. Per the Master Plan, Pump Station No. 4 consists
of four new 70-horsepower motors and four new 3,000-gallon-per-minute pumps for a firm and
total capacity of 12.9 mgd and 17.3 mgd, respectively.
Within the boundaries of the OPSP planning area, there are approximately 8,800 linear feet of
sewer pipelines that range in diameter from 2.5 inches to 8 inches and consist of gravity and force
mains. The locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 4. The linear footage of pipeline as well
as the corresponding pipeline diameters are listed in Table 6.
The conveyance system from the OPSP planning area boundary to the WQCP consists of
approximately 9,100 linear feet of gravity mains and approximately 5,100 linear feet of force
mains. The approximate linear footage and the corresponding pipeline diameters are listed in
Table 7 and Table 8.
FIGURE 4Oyster Point Existing Wastewater Collection System
#
#
#
#
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway Blvd
Grand Ave
Harbor Way
Bayshore Fwy
Forbes Blvd
Utah Ave
Mitchell Ave
PS-1
PS-4
PS-2
Existing Pump Station
12 10
30
6
8
6
1 5
15
15
12
1 0
1
2
27
8
27
6
10
27
86
6
27
18
6
2
1
12
12
WQCP
Oyster Point
4 3
6
2.5
44
H:\PDATA\157032\Calcs\Water\GIS\CompleteExistingSewer.mxd (8/22/2017)
0 500 1,000
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
#Pump S tation
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Manhole to Serve Project
Sewer Gravity Main to Serve Project
Sewer Force Main to Serve Project
Sewer Main
8
8
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
27
TABLE 6
EXISTING OPSP PLANNING AREA SEWER NETWORK
Type of Main Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
Gravity Mains
Service connection 485
2.5 334
3 548
4 939
6 1,334
8 750
Force Mains
4 1,925
8 2,497
Total Pipe Length 8,812
TABLE 7
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER NETWORK FROM THE OPSP PLANNING AREA TO THE WQCP
Gravity Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
6 766
8 1,408
10 1,007
12 949
15 2,000
18 524
21 557
27 1,757
30 145
Total Pipe Length 9,113
TABLE 8
EXISTING FORCE SEWER NETWORK FROM THE OPSP TO THE WQCP
Force Main Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
8 1,100
10 700
21 3,300
Total Pipe Length 5,100
Existing estimated wastewater flows in the OPSP planning area are summarized in Table 9. Details
of demand calculations are shown in Table 10 in Appendix B.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
28
TABLE 9
EXISTING ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOWS IN OPSP PLANNING AREA
Phase Wastewater flows (gallons per day)
IC 5,563
ID 7,995
IIC 2,615
IID 21,146
IIID and IVD 25,749
Total 63,068
Notes: * Phase numbering corresponds to the proposed phasing in the
2017 OPSP Update to allow for comparison between the approved
2011 OPSP and 2017 OPSP Update demand. Proposed phasing for
the 2017 OPSP Update is shown in Figure 2.
Wastewater Treatment
All wastewater from the City of South San Francisco is conveyed to the WQCP, which is located
at 195 Belle Air Road in South San Francisco. The WQCP is operated and maintained by the City
and serves a population of approximately 110,500. The WQCP provides primary and secondary
wastewater treatment for the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, the Town of Colma,
and portions of the City of Daly City.
The Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno and the North Bayside System Unit (NBSU)4
discharge wastewater collected by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno that is then
treated at the WQCP, as well as treated wastewater from the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae
and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The NBSU owns and operates a force main that
collects treated chlorinated wastewater from the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae (outside the
city limits) and SFO (outside the airport property) for dechlorination at the WQCP. The combined
treated, dechlorinated wastewater is discharged to lower San Francisco Bay through a single pipe
to the deep water outfall approximately 1 mile northeast of San Bruno Point.
The WCQP, the City of South San Francisco collection system, the City of San Bruno collection
system, and the NBSU operate under a single National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit No. CA0038130 and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2014-0012, issued
by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Cities of South San Francisco
and San Bruno also operate under the Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Dischargers SF Bay
Nutrients Watershed Permit Order No. R2-2014-0014 (NPDES No. CA0038873). The WQCP design
capacity for average dry weather flow is 13 mgd. The City of South San Francisco is entitled to
approximately 74 percent of the available treatment capacity of the WQCP (Schumacker 2017).
4 The NBSU is a joint powers authority composed of SFO and the Cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, South San Francisco, and
San Bruno.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
29
Table 10 lists the current and projected wastewater flows into the WQCP as reported in the South
San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update (City of South San
Francisco 2011). These projections were calculated based on population projections and historical
flow and load data.
TABLE 10
WQCP PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOW
Projected Flows from the 2011 South San Francisco/San Bruno
Water Quality Control Plant Facility Master Plan Update
Flow (mgd) 2011 2020 2030 2040
Average Dry Weather 8.7 9.2 9.7 10.3
Maximum Day 12 13.9 14.6 15.4
Average Annual 9.5 10.6 11.1 11.7
In 2016, average daily influent flows were 8.27 mgd for South San Francisco and San Bruno
combined (Schumacker 2017).
3.3 STORM DRAINAGE
Existing Conditions
The City of South San Francisco operates and maintains the stormwater drainage system that
serves the OPSP planning area. The existing stormwater drainage system consists of approximately
13,220 linear feet of stormwater drainage pipes, 88 stormwater drainage inlets, and 11 stormwater
manholes. The system contains various disconnected drainage networks that discharge directly
to San Francisco Bay through at least 16 outfalls and one channel.
Approximately 50 percent of the OPSP planning area is covered with impervious surfaces. The
locations of stormwater pipes, pipe diameter, and pipe material as well as catch basins,
manholes, outfalls, and the channel in the planning area are shown in Figure 5.
The City is one of 22 members of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
and operates under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008.
Provision C.3 of the permit requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs)
and low impact development (LID) design.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
30
This page intentionally left blank.
FIGURE 5OPSP Planning Area Existing Storm water Drainage System
"
"
""""""""""
""
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6"6
"6
"6"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6"6
"6
"6
Oyste r Po in t B lvd
Forbes Blvd
Bayshore Fwy
Eccles A ve
Veterans Blvd
33
38
48
36
15
3912
12
12
1 2
1 2
12
27
12
21
18
15
15
18
1 2
1 2
18
1 2
Oyster Point
12
15
24
8
18 18
12
15
1
2 8
1212
1 2 1 2
1
2
24
8
27
33
12
38
24
48
18
15
21
30
30
15
15
12
27
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\SD_Updated.mxd (8/23/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legen d
Oyster Point
"6 Drainag e Inlet
"Stormwater O utletManholeMaterialRCPCMPPEUnkChannel
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: DRY UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
33
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: DRY UTILITIES
4.1 ELECTRICITY/NATURAL GAS AND ENERGY
Existing Conditions
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) supplies electricity and natural gas services to
South San Francisco. Electrical service is available to locations where residential and
nonresidential uses could be developed under the 2017 OPSP Update. There are existing 12-kilovolt
(kV) underground conductor (distribution) lines throughout Oyster Point, following the Oyster Point
Boulevard, Marina Boulevard, and Gull Drive alignments. Pad-mounted transformers and other
subsurface devices provide connections from the 12-kV lines to the parcels via individual service
feeder lines. There are no electrical substation or generation facilities in the OPSP planning area.
There are natural gas distribution mains along Oyster Point Boulevard, Gull Drive, and the western
part of Marina Boulevard. Service lines connected to the distribution mains extend into the 2017
OPSP Update parcels (PG&E 2017).
4.2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Existing Conditions
There are existing underground fiber-optic communication and cable provider lines in the OPSP
planning area along the Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina Boulevard, and Gull Drive alignments
(Oyster Point Development LLC 2017).
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: DRY UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
34
This page intentionally left blank.
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
35
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Demand Estimate
The addition of the OPSP, including the addition of the proposed multi-family residential units and
reduction in office/R&D space, has been calculated to increase incident volume by 0.6 incidents
per day at project build-out (assumed to occur in 2023). This volume increase of 0.6 incidents per
day, or 219 incidents annually, would not require an increase in on-duty capacity (Kohlmann
2017). Detailed calculations are presented in Table A-1 in Appendix A.
Fire Station No. 62 serves the Oyster Point area from 249 Harbor Boulevard, and is approximately
7,600 square feet, with three apparatus bays and the area to accommodate an on-duty crew of
four personnel. Fire Station No. 62 was constructed in 1962 at a location best suited to protect the
area at that time. Attachment A-1 (“South San Francisco Fire Map 7b – 4 Minute Travel from Station
62”) included in Appendix A depicts areas of the city that can be traveled to within four minutes
from Station No. 62. Areas at the eastern end of the East of 101 Area, including the Oyster Point
area, are just outside of the existing Fire Station No. 62’s four-minute travel time capability. The
addition of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update’s residential units combined with the employment-
generating uses will necessitate the relocation and replacement of Fire Station No. 62 to
effectively serve the Oyster Point area. A relocated Fire Station No. 62 will provide the SSFFD the
ability to modify existing deployment to support response time performance that may be
impacted by traffic congestion or incident complexity. The relocated Fire Station No. 62 does not
need to increase in size over the existing 7,600 square feet, but the relocated station will need to
be configured to accommodate three apparatus bays and the ability to support an on-duty crew
of seven personnel to meet modern operational and housing needs. Such a configuration would
provide the opportunity to reconfigure existing fire company or ambulance deployment, which
may include relocated or new personnel (Kohlmann 2017).
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand
When the 2011 OPSP EIR was prepared, the SSFFD had 85 staff, with 20 on-duty firefighter and
emergency response staffing for each of three shifts. Station No. 62 was identified as the fire station
closest to the OPSP planning area. The 2011 OPSP EIR did not calculate an incidents-per-day
volume, but concluded no new or additional fire department facilities would be required, noting
that there would be acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives.
Applying the 2017 OPSP Update methodology to calculate incident volumes, the 2011 OPSP
would have resulted in an increased incident volume of 0.25 incidents per day (see Table A-1 in
Appendix A).
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in an estimated 0.6 incidents per day, an increase
of 0.35 incidents per day beyond that estimated for the approved 2011 OPSP. Neither the 2017
OPSP Update nor the 2011 OPSP identified a need for additional firefighters or facility space.
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
36
5.2 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Demand Estimate
The addition of the OPSP, including the addition of the proposed multi-family residential units and
reduction in office/R&D space, has been calculated to increase incident volume by 0.69 incidents
per day at project buildout (assumed to occur in 2023). This volume increase of 0.69 incidents per
day, or 253 incidents annually, would not require an increase in on-duty capacity (Azzopardi
2017). Detailed calculations are presented in Table A-2 in Appendix A.
The SSFPD serves the Oyster Point area from the one main station located at 33 Arroyo Drive (29,207
square feet). As part of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, a new police headquarters
facility (39,250 square feet) is planned for construction in 2019; the location of the new police
headquarters is close to the existing main station. In 2016, the SSFPD response times to Priority 1
(emergency) calls averaged 3:59 minutes and to nonemergency calls averaged 6:03 minutes.
Nationally, for cities similar in size to South San Francisco, the goal for Priority 1 response time is six
minutes or less. Therefore, these response times are considered acceptable.
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand
When the 2011 OPSP EIR was prepared, the SSFPD had 79 sworn officers (1.3 sworn officers per
1,000 population) and was generally able to respond to Priority 1 calls within 2 to 3 minutes, which
was within the SSFPD’s response time goals. The 2011 OPSP EIR did not calculate an incidents-per-
day volume, but concluded that the increase in employment uses would result in a slight increase
in daytime worker population, and that this would result in a negligible increase in demand for
police services. Applying the 2017 OPSP Update methodology to calculate incident volumes, the
2011 OPSP would have resulted in an increased incident volume of 0.16 incidents per day (see
Table A-2 in Appendix A).
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in an estimated 0.69 incidents per day, an increase
of 0.57 incidents per day beyond that estimated for the approved 2011 OPSP. Neither the 2017
OPSP Update nor the 2011 OPSP identified a need for additional police personnel.
As discussed in Section 2.2, the City will be constructing a new, approximately 39,000-square-foot
police headquarters that will replace the existing approximately 29,000-square-foot station as part
of the Community Civic Campus project. The new facility will result in an additional 10,000 square
feet of facility space. The 2017 OPSP Update demand would therefore not result in the need for
new or expanded police facility space.
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
37
5.3 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Demand Estimate
The proposed 1,191 residential units would result in the additional demand for up to approximately
6.4 acres of park and recreation facilities.5 Employment uses would generate a demand for
approximately 2.2 acres of parks.6 Total demand would be up to 8.6 acres.
A number of planned and potential locations for future parks are described in the Parks &
Recreation Master Plan, which could provide an additional 49 acres of parks and 40 acres of open
space, including expansion of Oyster Point Marina Park (City of South San Francisco 2015: 102).
The City’s ordinance as authorized by the Quimby Act (Municipal Code Chapter 19.24) requires
parkland dedication in proposed residential subdivisions or the payment of an in-lieu fee. In the
event the proposed residential subdivision is less than 50 parcels, the City may only require the
payment of an in-lieu fee. This fee requirement is a condition of approval of residential
development projects. The fees may only be used for acquiring land and developing new park
and recreation facilities or for rehabilitating and/or enhancing existing neighborhood parks,
community parks, and recreational facilities. The Quimby Act may not be used to require land
dedication for nonresidential development for parcel maps of less than five parcels. The City’s
Municipal Code also includes Chapter 8.67 “Parks and Recreation Impact Fee,” which requires
payment of a fee for rental residential and commercial projects.
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand
The 2011 OPSP EIR briefly described parks and recreation facilities in the city and indicated there
was an estimated 320 acres of parks and open space. The 2011 OPSP EIR determined that 2.98
acres of parkland would be required for the 2011 OPSP, based on the City’s standard of 0.5 acres
per 1,000 employees. An approximately 3-acre flexible-use recreation area (park) and an
additional approximately 3.1 acres of bayfront open space within the OPSP planning area was
characterized as providing a benefit because it exceeded the minimum demand requirement.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate a higher demand for park and recreational
facilities than the approved 2011 OPSP (8.6 acres compared to 2.9 acres).
5.4 SCHOOLS
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Demand Estimate
Table 11 summarizes the estimated number of students that could be generated by the residential
component of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update (total of 435 students). Student generation data
were provided by SchoolWorks. The generation rates do not distinguish between housing product
types (single-family or multi-family) (SchoolWorks 2017b). Table 11 also identifies the likely school
children would attend based on attendance area boundaries and enrollment as well as capacity
5 Calculated as follows: 1,191 units x 1.78 persons per household)/1,000 x 3.0 acres/1,000 population = 6.4 acres.
6 Calculated as follows: 4,330 employees x 0.5 acres/1,000 employees = 2.2 acres, assuming 376 square feet per employee,
consistent with the 2011 OPSP EIR assumption for square footage.
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
38
data for comparison. Demographic data and estimates prepared by SchoolWorks do not extend
beyond 2022–23.
TABLE 11
ESTIMATE OF STUDENTS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED 2017 OPSP UPDATE
AND ENROLLMENT/CAPACITY COMPARISON
School
Generation
Rate
Estimated
2017 OPSP
Update
Demand
Projected
Enrollment
through 2022–23
School Year Plus
(without 2017
OPSP Update
project)
Existing
Enrollment
Plus 2017
OPSP Update
Project
Demand
Capacity
through
2022–23
Martin Elementary School 0.1636 195 549 631 555
Parkway Heights Middle
School
0.0775 93 643 723 1,199
South San Francisco High
School
0.1228 147 1,379 1,526 1,764
Source: Generation rates from SchoolWorks 2017b. Enrollment and capacity from SchoolWorks 2017a.
There would be capacity at Parkway Heights Middle School and South San Francisco High School
if the project were occupied in the near term; however, there would be insufficient space at
Martin Elementary School.
The SSFUSD does not place caps on enrollment at any of its schools and regulates school capacity
based on class size rather than school size. The standard for operation is 24 students per classroom
for grades K–3, 30 students per classroom for grades 4–5, and 28 students per class for grades 6–
12 (SchoolWorks 2017a). As enrollment increases, the SSFUSD brings modular units onto the school
property to maintain these standards. The SSFUSD reviews open enrollment/intradistrict transfer
requests and balances enrollments across school sites and grade levels.
Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with
increasing school capacity as a result of development. Fee proceeds may be used for
construction or renovation of schools. The fees are assessed based upon the proposed square
footage of residential, commercial/industrial, and/or parking structure uses. Development impact
fees are an essential source of revenue in the provision of additional school resources needed for
development. Project sponsors of future development in the SSFUSD must pay all applicable
development impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance to the SSFUSD to cover
additional school services required by the new development. The current fees are $3.36 per
residential square foot and $0.54 per commercial square foot (SSFUSD 2015).
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand
The 2011 OPSP EIR briefly described the SSFUSD school system but did not include enrollment or
capacity data. The EIR noted that some office/R&D employees new to the 2011 OPSP could have
relocated to the city, thereby generating a small student population increase, but the number of
students was not quantified.
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
39
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate an estimated additional 435 school-age
children that would not have otherwise occurred with the approved 2011 OPSP.
5.5 LIBRARIES
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Demand Estimate
The residential population in the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would use library services. The
American Library Association (ALA) no longer recommends standards for physical space planning,
but recently constructed libraries in mid-sized cities of the San Francisco Peninsula have ranged
from 0.5 to 1.0 square feet per capita (City of South San Francisco 1999c). Some library planning
studies have also considered how far a library should be from the population served, both in terms
of distance and the number of minutes of travel time, and a 3- to 5-mile radius is a commonly
reported value. However, as with space needs, the ALA does not have any standards or
guidelines. The ALA also no longer has recommendations for collection size and media type and
number, noting that collection development, programs, and service space should be specific to
the demographic served.
As noted in Section 2.5 of this report, currently in South San Francisco, the library space per capita
is approximately 0.54 square feet. With the planned new library/recreation center in the
Community Civic Campus, this would result in approximately 0.88 square feet per capita and a
total of approximately 57,000 square feet of library space. At full buildout, and assuming 1.78
persons per household and a target of up to 0.6 square feet per capita, the proposed 1,191 units
in the 2017 OPSP Update would result in a demand for approximately 1,272 square feet of library
space. Existing library space totals approximately 35,000 square feet, and the addition of 2017
OPSP Update demand could be met by current and planned library space. The 2017 OPSP
Update project would be within a 3-mile radius of the new library and within an approximately 2-
mile radius of the branch library.
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand
The 2011 OPSP did not include residential land uses, and the EIR did not describe or evaluate library
services or provide demand estimates. The EIR noted that office/R&D uses exclusively would be
expected to create a negligible demand for public library services, although new residents who
might relocate to the city to work in the new office/R&D uses would likely contribute to increased
demand.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in increased demand for library facilities that would
not occur with the approved 2011 OPSP.
5.6 CHILDCARE FACILITIES
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Estimated Demand
The proposed residential and nonresidential uses in the 2017 OPSP Update would result in the need
for childcare facilities (centers or FCCHs) for infants to 4-year-olds (infant to preschool). Assuming
1.78 persons per household (for a resident population of 2,120) and 4,330 employees (of which
2,022 would be nonresidents working in the OPSP planning area), using the Brion Economics 2016
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
40
methodology, 143 spaces would be required for children 0 to 4 years old. Using the City’s 2001
nexus fee study methodology, the demand would be 133 spaces. Detailed assumptions and
calculations used in the Brion Economics 2016 methodology and the 2001 Nexus Study are
provided in Table A-3 in Appendix A.
The state’s community care licensing requires 35 square feet of indoor space per child and 75
square feet of outdoor space per child if the facility is not a functioning public or private school
site (Child Care Licensing Division 2001). Using the more conservative 2016 Brion Economics
methodology to estimate demand, the amount of indoor facility space that would be required
for 143 children would be approximately 5,000 square feet, and the amount of outdoor facility
space would be approximately 10,725 square feet.
There is currently a shortage of preschool childcare facilities in South San Francisco. The Brion
Economics 2016 study projected capacity/supply estimates through 2025 and determined that
there would be a continuing increased demand for childcare spaces. In 2025, the demand is
projected to be 3,709 spaces for children ages 0 to 4 years old, and the shortage will increase
from the current shortage of 408 spaces to 775 spaces for infants and preschool-age children,
assuming no additional center or FCCH space is added (Brion Economics 2016: Table B-20).
The cost for developing new facilities has been estimated at approximately $15,000 per space (in
2017 dollars).
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand
Childcare facilities were not described or evaluated in the 2011 OPSP EIR. However, using the
general assumptions in the 2001 nexus study that approximately 5 percent of employees would
need childcare for children ages 0 to 4, one child per employee and one childcare space per
employee, and that 50 percent of employees would use licensed childcare (centers or FCCHs),
the employment land uses in the approved 2011 OPSP would generate a demand for
approximately 81 spaces for children up to 4 years old. This equates to an estimated minimum
2,835 square feet of indoor space and 6,075 square feet of outdoor space. Applying the factors
in the 2016 Brion Economics study, the demand would be approximately 84 spaces. Table A-3 in
Appendix A provides detailed calculations using each method and for various population-based
scenarios.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in the demand for an additional approximately 59
childcare facility spaces for infants to 4-year-olds beyond what would have been required for the
approved 2011 OPSP.
5.7 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Proposed Oyster Point Demand Estimate
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate approximately 7,905 tons per year of solid waste
requiring landfill disposal. This estimate accounts for materials diverted and recycled from the
waste stream. The residential component would represent approximately 34 percent of that
amount. The remaining landfill capacity at the Ox Mountain Landfill is 22.18 million cubic yards.
The 2017 OPSP Update’s contribution of approximately 10,539 cubic yards of compacted waste
annually would decrease landfill capacity by less than 0.1 percent and therefore would not
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
41
adversely affect landfill capacity. Detailed calculations and assumptions are shown in Table A-4
in Appendix A.
Oyster Point 2011 Demand
The 2011 OPSP EIR described landfill capacity at the Ox Mountain Landfill and throughput for the
MRF/TS, and noted that no capacity deficiencies were identified. The 2011 OPSP EIR estimated
that full buildout of the 2011 OPSP would generate an additional 9.88 tons per day (3,610 tons per
year) of solid waste, and that this tonnage would not adversely affect landfill capacity.
For purposes of the analysis, the amount of solid waste requiring landfill disposal was estimated for
the 2011 OPSP and the proposed 2017 OPSP Update using more current per capita rates for South
San Francisco that are based on current population and actual disposal amounts, as determined
by CalRecycle. Using this method, the 2011 OPSP would generate approximately 7,236 tons per
year of solid waste requiring landfill disposal (approximately 9,648 cubic yards of compacted solid
waste), which would not affect landfill capacity. Detailed calculations and assumptions are
shown in Table A-4 in Appendix A.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate approximately 669 per year more solid waste
requiring landfill disposal than the approved 2011 OPSP. However, under either scenario there is
sufficient landfill capacity
5.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
42
This page intentionally left blank..
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
43
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
6.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Demand Estimate
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in increased water demand compared to existing
demand. Table 3 in Appendix B provides detailed assumptions and estimates for each land use
type.
A hydraulic analysis was prepared for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update based on the estimated
demand to evaluate the minimum distribution pipe diameters to provide service under peak-hour
water demand. The analysis included demand from the two existing R&D buildings outside the
planning area because they would rely on the same system. A detailed description of the analysis
and assumptions is provided in Appendix B. Figure 6 illustrates the recommended infrastructure
improvement, which is a new 16-inch line connecting to the existing 16-inch line in Oyster Point
Boulevard at the west end of the planning area. The recommendations take into account the
Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard roadway realignments.
In accordance with SB 610 and SB 221, Cal Water’s South San Francisco District prepared a Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) to evaluate its ability to serve the proposed 2017 OPSP Update. Cal
Water concluded there would be sufficient water supply in all water supply planning scenarios to
meet demand (Cal Water 2017).
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand Estimate
The utilities study for the 2011 OPSP EIR concluded that a new 12-inch-diameter water main will be
required along the realigned Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, which will branch off
from the existing 16-inch water main in Oyster Point Boulevard. Per the 2011 OPSP utilities study,
the existing 16-inch main serving the planning area was not expected to be affected by the
development of the 2011 OPSP.
Cal Water prepared a WSA for the 2011 OPSP and concluded it could supply the 2011 OPSP
project’s water demands.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
For purposes of determining required water distribution infrastructure to serve the proposed 2017
OPSP Update compared to the approved 2011 OPSP, revised estimates for existing and projected
demand were calculated for the approved 2011 OPSP as part of the needs assessment to allow
for phase-by-phase comparison between the two planning scenarios and to compare total
demand. The assumptions and detailed estimates for each are presented in Tables 3 and 4 in
Appendix B.
The results of the hydraulic analysis prepared for the needs assessment indicate that the 12-inch
line recommended in the 2011 OPSP utilities study for the OPSP planning area will need to be a
minimum 16-inch line, as shown in Figure 6.
A comparison of the net increase in water supply demand over existing conditions shown in the
2011 WSA (Cal Water 2011: Table 10) and the 2017 (Cal Water 2017: Table 10) indicates the
residential component of the proposed 2017 OPSP is the primary contributor to the increased
demand under the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
44
This page intentionally left blank.
FIGURE 6Minimum R equired Water Distribution Pipe Diameters
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Existing Conditions + Needs Assessment\Utility Memo\Figures REVISED\Final_M odel_Update.mxd (8/22/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
Oyster Project Bou ndary
!(Ju nctions
!(Existing Junction sDIAMETER
16" Main D istrib ution
Existing Water Pipeline
Fire-Flow Junciton (J-1)
Fire-Flow Junciton (J-2)
Oyster Point Blvd
Gull
D
r
Oyster Point Specific Plan
Boundary
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
47
6.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, CONVEYANCE, AND TREATMENT
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Estimated Demand
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in additional wastewater flows compared to existing
demand. Table 10 in Appendix B provides detailed assumptions and estimates for each land use
type.
The permitted average dry weather flow design capacity of the WQCP is 13 mgd. In 2016, average
daily influent flows were 8.27 mgd for South San Francisco and San Bruno combined, as noted in
Section 3.2. If the proposed 2017 OPSP Update were fully built out in the near term, the addition
of 2017 OPSP Update-generated average dry weather flows (0.5 mgd) when added to current
flows would not exceed the permitted capacity at the WQCP.
Figure 7 shows the recommended wastewater infrastructure improvements in the 2017 OPSP
Update planning area. With the new roadway alignment within the proposed 2017 OPSP Update,
new larger-diameter wastewater pipelines will need to be constructed in Oyster Point Boulevard
and Marina Boulevard to serve the proposed 2017 OPSP Update. The need for upsizing is the result
of the residential component. Pump Station No. 1 will need to be relocated to accommodate the
planned redevelopment in the area. The new Pump Station No. 1 will need to serve an ultimate
average daily flow of 629,000 gpd. The estimated peak wet weather flow rate is calculated to be
1.17 mgd. The upsized Pump Station No. 1 will need to be sized to meet this peak-hour flow plus
any additional flow generated from the undetermined land use of Phase IIC. Future analysis of the
wastewater generated by Phase IIC should be conducted to determine the impacts on the
system. It is assumed that the existing pump station located on the eastern side of Oyster Point will
require upgrades to accommodate the increased flow generated from the unknown land use of
Phase IIC.
The City of South San Francisco (2016) Adopted Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan,
Fiscal Year 2016–17, proposes improvements to the sewer system outside of the planning area,
specifically Pump Stations No. 2 and No. 4 and general sewer system rehabilitation. It is
recommended that these improvements be designed to handle the increased capacity from the
project.
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand Results
The utilities study prepared for the 2011 OPSP EIR (Carollo 2011) reported that the existing average
daily dry weather wastewater flow produced in the Oyster Point area was 90,000 gpd. Buildout
flows were estimated to be 370,000 gpd, or a net increase of 280,000 gpd. The utilities study
prepared for the 2011 OPSP EIR described sewer facilities in the OPSP planning area and data
about existing flows treated at the WQCP. The study concluded that abandoning Pump Station
No. 1 and constructing a new pump station within the OPSP area, as well as the upsizing of Pump
Station No. 2, would be sufficient to convey the increased wastewater generated by the 2011
OPSP. The utilities study prepared for the 2011 OPSP EIR concluded the increased wastewater flows
created by the 2011 OPSP would not adversely affect the WQCP capacity.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
For purposes of determining whether wastewater infrastructure improvements would be needed
to serve the proposed 2017 OPSP Update, revised estimates for existing and projected flows were
calculated for the approved 2011 OPSP as part of the needs assessment to allow for phase-by-
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
48
phase comparison between the two planning scenarios and to compare total demand. The
assumptions and detailed estimates for each are presented in Tables 10 and 11 in Appendix B.
Compared to the approved 2011 OPSP, the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate an
additional approximately 149,371 gpd of wastewater at buildout beyond that estimated for the
approved 2011 OPSP. The additional demand is attributable to the residential component. The
Pump Station No. 2 upsizing and improvements identified in the utilities study would still need to
occur, but the upsized Pump Station No. 1 will need to be sized larger than assumed in the utilities
study to meet the 2017 OPSP Update’s peak-hour flow plus any additional flow generated from
the undetermined land use of Phase IIC.
FIGURE 7Minimum R equired Wastewater Pipe Diam eters
#
#!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
8
10
15
8 88
8
10
8
10
6
8
10
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Sewer\G IS_Sewer\PipeDiameters.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
LEGEND
Oyster Point Specific Plan Boundary
Conceptual Roadway Alignment
#Pump Station
!ManholeDIAMETER
Existing Sewer
Force Main
Existing 6"
8
10
15
FUTURE HOTELSITEOPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
OFFICE / R&D
OFFICE / R&D
RESID ENTIAL
OFFICE / R&D
CITY VISIONING PROCESS UNDERWAY
Relocated Pump Station No . 1
Upsized Existing Pu mp Station
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
51
6.3 STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Estimated Demand
Figure 8 illustrates changes in impervious surface in the planning area with the proposed 2017
OPSP Update. The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in an additional approximately 0.8
acre of new impervious surface in the area north of 2011 OPSP Phase I. This would have a minimal,
if any, effect on stormwater discharges to the existing storm drainage system because stormwater
runoff increases must be managed in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) and
low impact development (LID) per the requirements of Provision C.3 of the NPDES Municipal
Regional Permit. No improvements to expand capacity of the drainage system are
recommended. However, the Phase IID portion of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update is located in
a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
specific building design requirements will apply.
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand Results
The utilities study prepared for the 2011 OPSP EIR (Carollo 2011) described storm drainage facilities
in the OPSP planning area and concluded that the total proposed project would increase the
amount of impervious area by 2.6 percent. Because this increase is relatively small (approximately
2 acres), the increased stormwater flow was anticipated to be mitigated through the
implementation of the requirements of Provision C.3. The utilities study concluded that
implementation of the 2011 OPSP would not be expected to significantly affect the existing storm
drain system.
Difference between Approved 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
There is no substantial difference between the 2011 OPSP and the proposed 2017 OPSP Update
relative to stormwater runoff. All new infrastructure and existing infrastructure improvements will
require implementation of BMPs and LID per the requirements of Provision C.3 of the current NPDES
permit.
6.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
52
This page intentionally left blank.
FIGURE 8Changes in Impervious Surface
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\OPD_Pervious.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Lege nd
Phase I Development
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Pervious Land
Are a (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of AreaPervious Area 17.9 54 20.8 63 2.9 9Impervious Area 14.9 46 12 37 -2.9 -9Total Area 32.8 100 32.8 100 0 0
Pre-Project Post-Project Ne t-ChangesPhase I Deve lopment as Previously Approved
Are a (ac)% of AreaPervious Are a 11.7 67.63Impervious Area 5.6 32.37Total Area 17.3 100
Pre-Project Phase IIC Developme nt Concept
Are a (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of AreaPervious Area 8.0 26.9 7.2 24.08 -0.8 -2.82Impervious Area 21.9 73.1 22.7 75.92 0.8 2.82Total Area 29.9 100 29.9 100 0 0
Proposed 2017 OPSP UpdatePre-Project Post-Project Ne t-Changes
7.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DRY UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
55
7.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DRY UTILITIES
7.1 ELECTRICITY/NATURAL GAS AND ENERGY
Proposed Oyster Point Estimated Demand
The estimated annual natural gas and energy demand associated with occupancy of the
proposed residential uses, office/R&D uses, and other uses is approximately 31.1 million kilowatt-
hours of electricity and approximately 69.7 billion British thermal units (BTU) (696,875 therms) of
natural gas.7
A determination as to whether existing facilities require modification to accommodate the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update cannot be made at this time because detailed building design and
load requirements are not known at this stage of project planning. The City’s development review
process includes a review and comment opportunity that allows for informed input from privately
owned utility companies, including PG&E, on all development proposals. This input facilitates a
detailed review of all projects by service providers to assess potential demands for utility services
on a project-by-project basis. PG&E’s ability to provide services concurrently with each project is
evaluated during the development review process. PG&E provides these services through state-
regulated public utility contracts, and the utility company is bound by contract to update the
systems to meet any additional demand. PG&E’s Electric and Gas Rules 15 and 16 establish
guidelines for the extension of distribution lines necessary to furnish permanent services to
customers. PG&E also outlines responsibilities for installation and extension allowances, as well as
financial contributions by project applicants.
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand Results
The 2011 OPSP EIR did not describe electricity and natural gas facilities or estimate direct energy
demand for area sources (i.e., building occupancy). However, based on the approved 2.3 million
square feet of office/R&D uses, the estimated annual energy demand associated with those uses
is approximately 34.3 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and approximately 69.1 billion BTU (691,131
therms) of natural gas.8
Difference between 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Natural gas demand associated with the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would be greater than the
2011 OPSP because of the additional residential uses. However, the electricity use would be slightly
lower as a result of reduced office/R&D uses.
7.2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Proposed Oyster Point Estimated Demand
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in the need for telecommunications services. There
are existing underground fiber-optic communication and cable provider lines in the OPSP
planning area along the Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina Boulevard, and Gull Drive alignments
(Oyster Point Development LLC 2017). Service would be provided upon request.
7 Estimated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.1.
8 Estimated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.1.
7.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DRY UTILITIES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
56
2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan Demand Results
The 2011 OPSP EIR did not describe telecommunication facilities or evaluate demand.
Difference between 2011 OPSP and Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
The residential component would add to the demand for telephone, cable, and internet services,
but the specific providers would be determined by the residents and occupants of the office/R&D
and other uses, not by the project developer.
8.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
57
8.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS
The following summarizes the key findings of this report:
· Fire and Emergency Response: The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would not result in the
need for additional firefighters/emergency response personnel or facility space for staff
and equipment. Fire Station No. 62 serves the Oyster Point area and is approximately 7,600
square feet, with three apparatus bays and the ability to accommodate an on-duty crew
of four personnel. The addition of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update’s residential units
combined with the employment-generating uses will necessitate the relocation and
replacement of Fire Station No. 62 to effectively serve the Oyster Point area. The relocated
station will need to be configured to continue to accommodate three apparatus bays,
but with the ability to accommodate up to seven on-duty personnel to meet modern
operational and housing needs. Such a configuration would provide the opportunity to
reconfigure existing fire company or ambulance deployment, and relocation of existing
or addition of future staff. It is anticipated that the station will be funded via a special tax
district. The City's Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update, when updated and
adopted, will also address how fire protection and emergency response services would
be funded and associated impact fees.
· Law Enforcement: The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would not result in the need for
additional officers or facility space. The City will be constructing a new, approximately
39,000-square-foot police headquarters that will replace the existing approximately
29,000-square-foot station as part of the Community Civic Campus project. The new facility
will result in an additional 10,000 square feet of facility space. The 2017 OPSP Update
demand would not result in the need for new or expanded police facility space. The City’s
Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update, when adopted, will address how police
services would be funded and associated impact fees.
· Parks and Recreation Facilities: The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate a higher
demand for park and recreational facilities than the approved 2011 OPSP (8.6 acres
compared to 2.9 acres). New and/or expanded parks and open space will be required in
response to population growth. The City’s Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
(2017), when adopted, will address how services would be funded and establish specific
impact fees for the 2017 OPSP Update. Municipal Code Chapter 8.67 “Parks and
Recreation Impact Fee” establishes requirements for payment of fees for rental residential
and commercial projects.
· Schools: The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate an estimated 435 additional
school-age children that would not have otherwise occurred with the approved 2011
OPSP. There is sufficient capacity in Parkway Heights Middle School and South San
Francisco High School to accommodate students generated by residential development
in the proposed 2017 OPSP Update, if all units were occupied by school year 2022–23, but
there would be a shortage of spaces at Martin Elementary School. The SSFUSD does not
place caps on enrollment at any of its schools and regulates school capacity based on
class size rather than school size. The district reviews open enrollment/intradistrict transfer
requests and balances enrollments across school sites and grade levels. As provided under
state law, payment of impact fees in accordance with SB 50 will mitigate the 2017 OPSP
Update’s impacts.
· Libraries: There are no existing deficiencies, and a new library is planned in the Community
Civic Campus, which will provide additional space for collections, programs, and
8.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
58
community engagement that would serve the residential component of the proposed
2017 OPSP Update, along with existing and future development in the city.
· Childcare Facilities: There is a shortage of spaces, and as the city’s residential and
employment population grows, there will be a need for additional facilities associated with
that deficit as well as increased demand. The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in
the demand for approximately 143 spaces in childcare centers and FCCHs for children
ages 0 to 4. This is approximately 59 more spaces than would be required under the
approved 2011 OPSP.
· Solid Waste: There are no existing deficiencies in collection or disposal facilities. The city is
on track to meet solid waste disposal targets, and new regulations will further reduce
disposal rates.
· Water Infrastructure and Supply: The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in an
additional demand for water, with the additional demand attributable to the residential
component. Cal Water has concluded in the WSA prepared for the proposed 2017 OPSP
Update there would be sufficient water to serve the project. The results of the hydraulic
analysis prepared for this needs assessment indicate that the 12-inch line recommended
in the 2011 OPSP utilities study for the planning area would need to be a minimum 16-inch
line.
· Wastewater Collection and Treatment: Compared to the approved 2011 OPSP, the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate an additional approximately 149,371 gpd of
wastewater beyond that estimated for the 2011 OPSP at buildout, with the additional
demand attributable to the residential component. With the new roadway alignment
within the proposed 2017 OPSP Update, new larger-diameter wastewater pipelines will
need to be constructed in Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard to serve the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update. The need for upsizing is the result of the residential
component. Pump Station No. 1 will need to be relocated to accommodate the planned
redevelopment in the area. The new Pump Station No. 1 will need to serve an ultimate
average daily flow of 629,000 gpd. The Pump Station No. 2 upsizing and improvements
identified in the 2011 OPSP utilities study would still need to occur, but will need to be sized
larger than assumed in the utilities study to meet the 2017 OPSP Update’s peak-hour flow
plus any additional flow generated from the undetermined land use of Phase IIC. It is
assumed that the existing pump station located on the eastern side of Oyster Point will
require upgrades to accommodate the increased flow generated from the unknown land
use of Phase IIC. The City of South San Francisco (2016) Adopted Operating Budget &
Capital Improvement Plan, Fiscal Year 2016–17, proposes improvements to the sewer
system outside of the planning area, specifically Pump Stations No. 2 and No. 4 and
general sewer system rehabilitation. It is recommended that these improvements be
designed to handle the increased capacity from the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
· Storm Drainage: There is a storm drainage system in the planning area, and no existing
deficiencies. There has been no development in the planning area since 2011 that has
resulted in more stormwater runoff than previously estimated. The proposed 2017 OPSP
Update would result in an additional approximately 0.8 acre of new impervious surface in
the area north of 2011 OPSP Phase I. This would have a minimal, if any, effect on stormwater
discharges to the existing storm drainage system because stormwater runoff increases
must be managed in accordance with BMPs and LID per the requirements of the NPDES
Municipal Regional Permit. No improvements to expand capacity of the drainage system
are recommended. The Phase IID portion of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update is located in
8.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
59
a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and specific building design requirements will apply.
· Electricity/Natural Gas: There is existing PG&E service in the planning area.
· Telecommunication Facilities: There are existing fiber-optic and cable lines in the planning
area.
8.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
60
This page intentionally left blank.
9.0 REFERENCES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
61
REFERENCES
Bernal-Silva, Angela. 2017. Management Analyst, South San Francisco Public Library. Email to
Alice Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International. February 21.
Brion & Associates. 2001. Final Report: South San Francisco Child Care Facilities Fee Nexus Study.
Brion Economics, Inc. 2016. Memorandum: Final San Mateo County Child Care Needs
Assessment – 2015 and 2025 – Supply and Demand Analysis.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2015.
PacITConversion Table 1 – Material Type Equivalency Factors.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Conversion1.pdf.
———. 2017. Disposal Reporting System (DRS) Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Search criterion:
South San Francisco.
Cal Water (California Water Service). 2011. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for Oyster Point
Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan and Project.
———. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District.
———. 2017. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for Oyster Point Development Project.
Carollo Engineers. 2011. Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan
Utilities Study.
CDSS (California Department of Social Services). 2016. Childcare facility search.
https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/home/index.
Child Care Licensing Division, California Department of Social Services. 2001. Regulation
Interpretations and Procedures for Child Care Centers.
City of South San Francisco. 1999a. General Plan Health and Safety Element.
http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/14005.
———. 1999b. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.
State Clearinghouse No. 97122030.
———. 1999c. South San Francisco Public Library Addendum to 1998 Needs Assessment.
———. 2011. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update,
Chapter 2 (Flows and Projections).
———. 2014. Sewer System Management Plan. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/9917.
———. 2015. Parks & Recreation Master Plan. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/12326.
———. 2016. Adopted Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan, Fiscal Year 2016–17.
———. 2017a. Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis (Sewer Capacity Fee and Bicycle
and Pedestrian Impact Fee).
9.0 REFERENCES
City of South San Francisco 2017 OPSP Update Municipal Services Assessment
November 2017 Draft Report
62
———. 2017b. Oyster Point: Update to February 23, 2011, Specific Plan Appendix + Design
Guidelines (April 12, 2017).
DOF (California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit). 2016. Report E-5,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011–2016,
with 2010 Benchmark.
Kohlmann, Gerald. 2017. Fire Chief, South San Francisco Fire Department. August 3.
Lamphier-Gregory. 2011. Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2010022070.
Magallanes, Jesus. 2017. Deputy Fire Chief, South San Francisco Fire Department. Email to Alice
Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International. January 27.
Navarro, Marcus. 2017. Operations Manager, Corinda Los Trancos Sanitary Landfill. Phone
conversation with Alice Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International. April 12.
Oyster Point Development LLC. 2017. Oyster Point Phase IIID – A Precise Plan, March 31, 2017,
submittal.
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2017. Distribution Maps (provided under agreement
to the City of South San Francisco).
Rudis, Michael. 2017. Master Sergeant, South San Francisco Police Department. Email to Alice
Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International. February 23.
SchoolWorks, Inc. 2017a. South San Francisco Unified School District Demographic Study
2016/2017.
———. 2017b. Brett H. Merrick. Email to Alice Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International.
June 8.
Schumacker, Brian. 2017. Plant Superintendent, South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant.
Email to Alice Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International. February 14.
South San Francisco Scavenger Company. n.d Sustainability Highlights Report 2015/2016.
http://www.ssfscavenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2015-Sustainability-Highlight-
Report-Website.pdf.
SSFPL (South San Francisco Public Library). 2016. South San Francisco Public Library Strategic Plan
2016–2020. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/12363.
SSFUSD (South San Francisco Unified School District). 2015. School Fee Certification of
Compliance (Revision 6/15).
file:///W:/South%20San%20Francisco,%20City%20of/Oyster%20Point%20Phase%202/1_Backg
round%20docs/Schools/school%20dev%20fee.pdf
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC SERVICES DEMAND
ESTIMATES TABLES
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
Fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
/
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Un
i
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
a
l
l
s
1
To
t
a
l
C
a
l
l
s
/
D
a
y
F
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
1,
1
9
1
15
1
.
6
0
0.
4
2
0
Sq
.
F
t
.
An
n
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
a
l
l
s
To
t
a
l
C
a
l
l
s
/
D
a
y
Firefighter Demand
2,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
90
.
8
1
0.250
Sq
.
F
t
.
An
n
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
a
l
l
s
2
To
t
a
l
C
a
l
l
s
/
D
a
y
F
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
1,
6
2
8
,
0
0
0
65
.
7
1
0.
1
8
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
s
21
7
.
3
1
0.
6
0
0
1,191 1,628,000 2,250,000 0.1066 0.0338 2,023 3%
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
)
As
s
u
m
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
-
O
u
t
As
s
u
m
e
d
A
v
g
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
R
&
D
a
n
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
p
a
c
e
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
S
p
a
c
e
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Av
g
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
U
n
i
t
3
Av
g
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
4
No
t
e
s
:
1.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
ts
/
(
a
v
g
a
n
n
u
a
l
c
a
l
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
h
i
g
h
-
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
r
e
s
i
d
en
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
x
3
%
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
3
)
2.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
S
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
o
f
n
o
n
-
r
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
(
a
v
g
a
n
n
u
a
l
c
a
l
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
x
3
%
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
3
)
3.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
9
4
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
a
l
l
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
/
8
8
2
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l
u
n
i
t
s
a
t
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
0
.
1
0
6
6
4.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
1
8
9
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
a
l
l
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
/
(
5
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
a
t
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
/
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
)
=
0
.
0
3
3
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
0()0'L DL 0()0'L '&+$L EL0()0'L '8$='L
B <*0;
L ? FL
G
H
I
J
KL
61218'&+&L 0(+0'L
C +&L 0(+0'L 3=$-L L @L L L!L"L AL L L
#L7 L >.4 L9/,%5:L
Attachment A-1Attachment A-1
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
2
Po
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Un
i
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
a
l
l
s
1
To
t
a
l
C
a
l
l
s
/
D
a
y
P
o
l
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
1,
1
9
1
20
9
.
9
1
0.
5
8
0
Sq
.
F
t
.
An
n
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
a
l
l
s
To
t
a
l
C
a
l
l
s
/
D
a
y
Police Officer Demand
2,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
59
.
3
8
0.160
Sq
.
F
t
.
An
n
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
a
l
l
s
2
To
t
a
l
C
a
l
l
s
/
D
a
y
P
o
l
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
1,
6
2
8
,
0
0
0
42
.
9
6
0.
1
2
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
s
25
2
.
8
8
0.
6
9
0
1,191 1,628,000 2,250,000 0.1476 0.0221 2,023 3%
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
)
As
s
u
m
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
-
O
u
t
As
s
u
m
e
d
A
v
g
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
R
&
D
a
n
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
p
a
c
e
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
S
p
a
c
e
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Av
g
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
U
n
i
t
3
Av
g
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
a
l
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
4
No
t
e
s
:
1.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
ts
/
(
a
v
g
a
n
n
u
a
l
c
a
l
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
h
i
g
h
-
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
r
e
s
i
d
en
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
x
3
%
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
3
)
2.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
S
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
o
f
n
o
n
-
r
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
(
a
v
g
a
n
n
u
a
l
c
a
l
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
x
3
%
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
3
)
3.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
4
1
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
a
l
l
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
/
2
8
0
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l
u
n
i
t
s
a
t
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
0
.
1
4
7
6
4.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
1
2
4
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
a
l
l
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
/
(
5
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
a
t
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
/
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
)
=
0
.
0
2
2
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
Table A-3
Child Care Facility Space Demand Estimates
1,191 6.2%
46.7%
3.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Infant1234
20.4%19.3%20.5%20.3%19.5%
73%73%73%100%100%
37%37%75%100%100%
Infant 1 2 3 4
1.78 2120 131 27 25 27 27 26
Infant 1 2 3 4 Total
1.78 2120 131 7 7 15 27 26 82
Total
0 to 2 2 to 4 Total Res 82
376 4330 2,022 24 36 61 Non Res 61
2011 OPSP 5985 2,795 345084 Total143
Res2,120 13%27654%14950%74
Emp 4,330 5%216 54%117 50%58
5985 5%299 54%162 50%81
Age
% of children under 5 by age4
Labor Force Participation Rate3
% of children requiring licensed care3
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Non-resident Employee Child Care
Demand Estimates
Resident Child Population Estimates
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Resident and Non-resident Employee Child Day Care Demand Estimates
Children by AgeChildren
under 5
Total
Populationpph factor
pph factor
Total
Population
Children
under 5
Children Requiring Day Care by Age5
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Resident Child Care Space Demand Estimates
% of non-resident employees that require child care3
% non-resident employee child care age 0 to 23
% non-resident employee child care age 2 to 43
Assumptions
% of population under 5 years1
1,628,000 Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Office, R&D, and Retail Space (sq. ft.)
% of employees who work in the city but live outside the county2
Residential Units
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Child Care Space Demand
2001 Nexus Fee Study Approachb
Proposed 2017 OPSP
Update Population
Approved 2011 OPSP Employee Population
Total Children
(population Under 14)
Under 5 Requiring
Day Care
Portion of Children
Under 5
Children Requiring Day Care6
Total133
sf/emp
Total
Employees
Non-res
Employees
Notes:
a Calculation using BrionEconomics 2016 method for comparison
b Provided for comparison/informational purposes
1. Source: Brion Economics 2016 Table 3
2. Source: Brion Economics 2016Table 4
3. Source: Brion Economics 2016 pp 6-7
4. Source: US Census Data Set QT-P2 Single Years + Age and Sex: 2010
5. Proposed2017 OPSP Update resident demand = children * labor force participation ate * % of children requiring day care
November 2017
TABLE A-4
OPSP Solid Waste Estimates
2017 OPSP
Update
Approved
2011 OPSP
Residents14,628-
Non-Res. Employee40,26955,661
Total54,89755,661
Residents2,670-
Non-Res. Employee5,2357,236
Total7,9057,236
Un-Compacted35,93032,890
Compacted10,5399,648
Un-Compacted0.2%0.1%
Compacted 0.0%0.04%
Res.Non-Res
Population 2017 OPSP Update2,1204,330
Population 2011 OPSP-5,985
Day per year Waste Generation365260
Solid Waste Generation per person (ppd)6.9 9.3
Tons per cubic yard Un-Compacted
Tons per cubic yard Compacted
Landfill Capacity, millions of cubic yards
Solid Waste Generation
0.22
0.75
22.18
pounds per day (ppd)
tons per year (tpy)
cubic yards per year
(cy/y)
% Landfill Capacity
Assumptions
Notes:
Hotel not included
November 2017
APPENDIX B: WATER, WASTEWATER, AND
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES STUDY
MBAKERINTMBAKERINTMBAKERINTMBAKERINTLLLL.COM.COM.COM.COM 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
MEMO
To: Billy Gross, AICP, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
From: Kevin Gustorf, PE
Cc:
Date: November 14, 2017
Re: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Utilities Analysis
BACKGROUND
The City of South San Francisco approved the Oyster Point Specific Plan (OPSP) in 2011 to develop the
Oyster Point area in four phases as well as a future phase to construct a 350-room hotel (Figure 1). The
approved 2011 OPSP and related entitlements allowed for the development of 2.25 million square feet
of office/R&D uses across an approximately 41.4-acre developer-owned site to be built out in four
phases (ID, IID, IIID, and IVD). In addition, two phases of infrastructure and open space improvements
were approved throughout the site and across the adjacent 40-acre site owned by the City of South San
Francisco (Phases IC and IIC). A Precise Plan for Phases IC and ID, consisting of approximately 508,000
square feet of office/R&D on 10 acres and infrastructure and open space improvements on 25 acres, was
approved at the same time as the OPSP and is under construction. Phases IID through IVD provided for
1.75 million square feet of office/R&D at a floor area ratio of 1.25 (calculated across the remaining 31.4
former developer-owned acres) and new infrastructure and open space improvements. There are some
existing uses that were assumed to remain in the OPSP planning area.
An alternate development proposal has been submitted to the City of South San Francisco for
developing the plan area, which would include a residential component and a reduction in office/R&D
square footage (Figure 2). The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would modify Phases IIID and IVD of the
approved 2011 OPSP and related entitlements to include residential and retail uses. No changes are
proposed to Phase IID, but it is part of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update application. Phase IID is
proposed to include approximately 1.07 million square feet of office/R&D, including approximately
28,000 square feet of retail, amenity, and/or flex-use space at a floor area ratio less than or equal to 1.25,
parking, and infrastructure. Phases IIID and IVD are a mixed-use program that would include
approximately 1.472 million square feet consisting of 1,191 residential units and 22,000 square feet of
retail, amenity, and flex-use space, parking, and infrastructure. Public realm improvements for these two
phases would remain consistent with those in the approved 2011 OPSP. Phase IC and Phase ID are
assumed to proceed as previously approved in the 2011 OPSP. The City is currently developing the
vision of Phase IIC, and specific land uses are not known at this time.
FIGURE 1Approved 2011 OPSP
Phase IV - Approved Land UseR&D - 310,200 (sf) Office - 206,800 (sf)Open space
Phase III - Approved Land UseR&D - 315,000 (sf)Office - 210,000 (sf) Open SpacePhase III - Approved Land UseR&D - 420,000 (sf) Office - 280,000 (sf)
Phase I - Approved Land UseR&D - 304,800 (sf)Office - 203,200 (sf)Commerical - 10,000 (sf)
Future Hotel - Approved Land UseHotel - 350 RoomsRetail/Restaurant - 40,000 (sf)
Total Square-Footage (sf) for Oyster PointSpecific Plan Phases: 2,300,000
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Future H otel
Phase IV
Open Space
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\Figure_1.mxd (8/22/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
Oyster Point
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Future Hotel
Open Space
FIGURE 2Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Phase IC
Phase IIC
Phase ID
Phase IID
Phase IIID and Phase IVD
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\ProposedOPD.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Leg en d
Oyster Point Specific Plan
Phase IC
Phase ID
Phase IIC
Phase IID
Phase IIID and Phase IVD
Infrastructure and Open Space - Phase II, III, IVD
Phase IIID and Phase IVD - Proposed Land UseResidential Multifamily Units - 1,191Retail - 22,000 (sf)
Phase IC - Approved Land U seHotel - 350 RoomsRetail/Restaurant - 40,000 (sf)
Phase IIC - Proposed Land UseCity Visioning Process Underway
Phase ID - Approved Land UseR&D - 304,800 (sf)Office - 203,200 (sf)Commerical - 10,000 (sf)
Phase IID - Proposed Land UseR&D/Office - 1,042,000 (sf)Retail - 28,000 (sf)
Infrastructure and Open Space - Phase II, III, IVD
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 4
PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this memorandum is to estimate the proposed 2017 OPSP Update’s demand on potable
water, wastewater, and storm drainage water utility systems based on the proposed 2017 OPSP Update
and to identify recommended improvements.
A utilities study was prepared by Carollo Engineers in 2011 to support the OPSP EIR analysis. The results
of that study are summarized in this memorandum for informational and comparison purposes only.
For purposes of determining the required infrastructure to serve the proposed 2017 OPSP Update,
revised estimates for existing and projected demand were also calculated for the approved 2011 OPSP
to allow phase-by-phase comparison between the two planning scenarios and to compare total
demand. The results of the analysis presented in this memorandum are an update of the 2011 utilities
study based on an assessment of existing conditions and hydraulic modeling that reflects current
conditions and the development assumptions of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
POTABLE WATER
WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) South San Francisco District (District) provides
potable water to the planning area through facilities owned and operated by the District. The District’s
overall water system includes 144 miles of pipeline, 12 storage tanks, 21 booster pumps, and 5
groundwater wells. Figure 3 (Oyster Point Existing Water Distribution System) illustrates the
approximate locations of the water distribution system in the OPSP planning area. The existing water
distribution system consists of 8-inch to 16-inch water mains and 4-inch to 8-inch water service
connection pipes, approximately 66 water manholes, and 26 fire hydrants. Table 1 lists the calculated
linear footage of existing water mains. This information was established from the Cal Water: South San
Francisco District Water System drawings of the Oyster Point area produced by Cal Water’s Engineering
Department. Figure 3 shows the location of the existing water distribution system.
Table 1: Existing OPSP Planning Area
Water Distribution System
Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
8 4,494
12 5,363
16 728
Total pipe length 10,586
The utilities study prepared for the OPSP EIR in 2011 concluded that a new 12-inch-diameter water main
would be required along the realigned Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, which would
branch off from the existing 16-inch water line in Oyster Point Boulevard. Per the utilities study, the
existing 16-inch main serving the OPSP planning area was not anticipated to be impacted by the
development of the 2011 OPSP.
FIGURE 3OPSP Planning Area Existing Water Distribution System
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Water\GIS_Water\Water.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
Oyster Poin t Sp ecific Plan Bo unda ry
G!.Fire Hyd ran t
Ma nholePipe Diameter
4
6
8
12
16
Oyster Point Blvd
Eccles Ave
Gull Dr
M
arina Blvd
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 6
POTABLE WATER DEMAND FACTORS AND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
The demand factors used to calculate the potable water demands for R&D, office, commercial, hotel,
and retail were obtained from the utilities study prepared by Carollo Engineers in 2011 for the OPSP EIR.
The demand factors used for restaurants and irrigated areas were taken from the Senate Bill (SB) 610
Water Supply Assessment prepared by Cal Water in 2011 for the OPSP EIR. The demand factor used for
multi-family dwelling units was based on the target water usage goal of 2020, gallons-per-capita-per-
day (gpcd), from the Cal Water South San Francisco District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP).
Irrigation areas were added to the water demand calculations listed in the utilities study because it did
not include irrigation and to allow for estimating existing and future demand and a means of
comparison. The utilities study demand for the land use type of retail/restaurants was reported at 16
gallons per day (gpd) per 1,000 square feet of building. This value may be a low estimation of water
usage for that combined land use type, so a demand factor of 1.1 gpd per square foot of building was
used to estimate demand separately for the restaurant category.
Table 2 lists the water demand factors used to estimate total water demand for this analysis.
Table 2: Water Demand Factors
Land Use Type Water Demand Units
R&D 223 gpd/1,000 sf
Office 59 gpd/1,000 sf
Auxiliary commercial 16 gpd/1,000 sf
Hotel 130 gpd/room
Retail 16 gpd/1,000 sf
Restaurant 1.1 gpd/sf
Multi-family 124 gpcd
Irrigated area 0.079 gpd/sf
Drought-resistant
irrigated area 0.04 gpd/sf
The proposed 2017 update to the approved 2011 OPSP to reflect the current proposal indicates 1,191
multi-family residential units. The analysis assumes the following breakdown of units, as identified in
the planning application documents for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update:
· 514 Studio/1-Bedroom Units
· 479 2-Bedroom Units
· 198 3-Bedroom Units
Residential potable water demand is based on the number of persons in a dwelling unit. The anticipated
number of persons occupying the multi-family dwelling units was assumed as follows:
· Studio/1-Bedroom Units: 1 person
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 7
· 2-Bedroom Units: 3 persons
· 3-Bedroom Units: 5 persons
Consistent with the Carollo 2011 utilities study, the analysis assumes the office/R&D square footage
would be 40% office and 60% R&D.
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update Phase IIC land use has not yet been determined; therefore, no new
water demand calculations were completed for this phase. However, a preliminary fire flow analysis
was performed based on an assumed fire flow and our recommendation for a 16-inch line in that area
(see below). Once the Phase IIC land use plan has been determined and the water demands calculated
and fire flow demand determined, the City and Cal Water will need to determine if a single dead-end
water line is still sufficient to meet the demands and minimum design criteria. It is recommended that
the City and Cal Water consider looping the water system at that time.
POTABLE WATER DEMAND ESTIMATE
Table 3 and Table 4 present estimated and projected average daily, maximum daily, and peak-hour water
demand for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update and approved 2011 OPSP, respectively. The water demand
generated by the two five-story pharmaceutical buildings immediately east of the northern part of the
OPSP planning area have been included in the total existing and total proposed flow rates because these
buildings are supplied from the system that will supply the proposed 2017 OPSP Update. The demand
associated with these two buildings is identified as Existing Unchanged in Tables 3 and Table 4. The
existing demand in each table is identical for comparison purposes. Table 3 presents demand estimates
for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update compared to the estimated existing demand. Table 4 presents
demand estimates for the approved 2011 OPSP assuming buildout as approved in 2011. In each of the
tables, the existing buildings located in the OPSP planning area are organized by the phase that most
closely corresponds to the proposed phasing in the 2017 OPSP Update, along with demand subtotals, for
easy side-by-side comparison. Both tables list the land use type, building square footage or land use type
square footage, and calculated water demand.
Implementation of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in a potable water demand of 736,206
gpd, which would increase the water demand by approximately 640,680 gpd above existing demand.
This figure includes the demand from the two five-story buildings outside the planning area, which is
included in the model. The largest land use contributor to the water demand in the proposed 2017
OPSP Update is the multi-family residential development (1,191 dwelling units) in Phases IID and IVD.
A comparison of total projected demand for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update with the projected
demand for the approved 2011 OPSP shows that the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in an
additional potable water demand of approximately 301,344 gpd more than the demand created by the
approved 2011 OPSP (Table 3).
Please note that the water demand estimated presented in this utilities study differs from the estimates
prepared by Cal Water for purposes of SB 610 compliance and associated water supply assessment
(WSA) reporting requirements for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update. Planning-level water demand
factors to calculate the future ultimate water demand, as used in this study (Table 2), are necessarily
conservative because they need to account for variations in demand and potentially variations in land
use. The planning-level factors are used to size facilities to ensure the size of water facilities is not
Ta
b
l
e
3
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
Ar
e
a
(a
p
p
r
o
x
.
sq
f
t
)
La
n
d
U
s
e
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
Av
g
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
De
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
Ma
x
D
a
i
l
y
W
a
t
e
r
De
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
(a
v
g
*
1
.
5
7
)
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
(m
a
x
d
a
y
*
1
.
5
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
Up
d
a
t
e
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ar
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
.
Sq
f
t
)
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
Avg Daily Water Demands (gal/day)Max Daily Water Demands (gal/day) (avg*1.57)Peak Hour Water Demand (Max Day*1.5)
Gy
m
,
H
e
a
r
t
S
c
a
n
8
7
,
5
0
0
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
,
CO
M
M
,
O
F
F
)
As
s
u
m
e
1
/
3
s
p
l
i
t
8
,
6
9
2
1
3
,
6
4
6
2
0
,
4
6
9
Bi
o
d
e
s
y
,
M
c
l
a
b
3
0
,
2
5
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
O
f
f
i
c
e
22
3
a
n
d
5
9
gp
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4,
2
6
5
6
,
6
9
6
1
0
,
0
4
5
24
,
9
4
2
3
9
,
1
5
9
5
8
,
7
3
8
365,036 573,107 859,660
Pe
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
S
t
a
r
G
l
a
s
s
,
U
S
D
A
A
n
i
m
a
l
9
3
,
5
0
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
O
f
f
i
c
e
22
3
a
n
d
5
9
gp
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
3
,
1
8
4
2
0
,
6
9
8
3
1
,
0
4
7
R
&
D
6
2
5
,
0
0
0
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
3
9
,
3
7
5
218,819 328,228
PS
A
V
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
7
3
,
0
0
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
O
f
f
i
c
e
22
3
a
n
d
5
9
gp
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
10
,
2
9
3
1
6
,
1
6
0
2
4
,
2
4
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
4
1
7
,
0
0
0
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
2
4
,
6
0
3
38,627 57,940
Pa
r
k
&
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
p
a
c
e
4
3
,
5
6
0
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
0
.
0
7
9
g
p
d
/
s
f
3
,
4
4
1
.
2
4
5
,
4
0
3
8
,
1
0
4
R
e
t
a
i
l
2
8
,
0
0
0
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4
4
8
703 1,055
26
,
9
1
8
4
2
,
2
6
1
6
3
,
3
9
1
164,426 258,149 387,223
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
2
3
9
,
0
0
0
O
p
e
n
L
a
n
d
-
-
Do
m
i
n
i
c
s
B
a
n
q
u
e
t
s
1
1
,
3
0
0
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
1
2
,
4
3
0
1
9
,
5
1
5
2
9
,
2
7
3
2
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
@
S
F
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
8
0
0
O
T
H
E
R
(
R
E
S
T
)
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
1
,
7
6
0
2
,
7
6
3
4
,
1
4
5
Dr
a
k
e
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
(
B
o
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
S
h
o
p
)
2
7
,
5
0
0
Au
x
i
l
i
a
r
y
Co
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
16
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4
4
0
6
9
1
1
,
0
3
6
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
1
,
3
0
0
R
e
t
a
i
l
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
2
1
3
3
4
9
14
,
6
5
1
2
3
,
0
0
2
3
4
,
5
0
3
89,500 140,515 210,773
Of
f
i
c
e
9,
9
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
5
8
4
9
1
7
1
,
3
7
6
R
&
D
3
0
4
,
8
0
0
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
6
7
,
9
7
0
106,714 160,070
Of
f
i
c
e
2
0
3
,
2
0
0
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
1
,
9
8
9
1
8
,
8
2
2
28,234
Co
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
1
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
6
0
251 377
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
&
P
a
r
k
8
2
,
7
6
4
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
0
.
0
7
9
g
p
d
/
s
f
6
,
5
3
8
1
0
,
2
6
5
1
5
,
3
9
8
S
p
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
&
P
a
r
k
8
2
,
7
6
4
0
.
0
7
9
g
p
d
/
s
f
6
,
5
3
8
10,265 15,398
21
,
9
1
2
3
4
,
4
0
3
5
1
,
6
0
4
86,658 136,052 204,079
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
8
0
0
O
t
h
e
r
(
R
E
S
T
)
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
8
8
0
1
,
3
8
2
2
,
0
7
2
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Y
a
c
h
t
C
l
u
b
H
o
u
s
e
4
,
0
0
0
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
4
,
4
0
0
6
,
9
0
8
1
0
,
3
6
2
Bo
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
,
s
t
o
r
e
2
,
5
0
0
Au
x
i
l
i
a
r
y
Co
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
16
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4
0
6
3
9
4
Sh
o
p
:
9
8
5
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
l
v
d
1
,
4
4
0
R
e
t
a
i
l
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
2
3
3
6
5
4
2
x
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
8
0
0
O
t
h
e
r
(
R
e
s
t
)
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
1
,
7
6
0
2
,
7
6
3
4
,
1
4
5
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
e
a
76
4
,
6
5
6
0
.
0
4
g
p
d
/
s
f
3
0
,
5
8
6
4
8
,
0
2
0
7
2
,
0
3
1
7,
1
0
3
1
1
,
1
5
2
1
6
,
7
2
8
---
21
0
,
3
7
1
3
3
0
,
2
8
2
4
9
5
,
4
2
4
851,051 1,336,150 2,004,225
95
,
5
2
6
736,206
Ne
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
f
r
o
m
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
6
4
0
,
6
8
0
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
m
a
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
301,344
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
s
q
f
t
)
Av
g
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
De
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
Ma
x
D
a
i
l
y
W
a
t
e
r
De
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
(
a
v
g
*
1
.
5
7)
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
De
m
a
n
d
(
m
a
x
da
y
*
1
.
5
)
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
R
&
D
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
7
,
4
2
3
9
0
,
1
5
3
1
3
5
,
2
3
0
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
R
&
D
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
7
,
4
2
3
9
0
,
1
5
3
1
3
5
,
2
3
0
11
4
,
8
4
5
18
0
,
3
0
7
27
0
,
4
6
0
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
-
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
To
t
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
-
To
t
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
C
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Ci
t
y
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Un
d
e
r
w
a
y
-
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
71,435
Ph
a
s
e
I
D
In
n
a
t
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
,
(
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
a
n
d
So
u
t
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
3
0
R
o
o
m
s
(6
5
0
0
s
f
)
Ho
t
e
l
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
13
0
g
p
d
/
r
o
o
m
,
1.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
14
,
7
9
0
2
3
,
2
2
0
3
4
,
8
3
0
16
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
352 553 829
Ph
a
s
e
I
C
Ho
t
e
l
3
5
0
1
3
0
g
p
d
/
r
o
o
m
4
5
,
5
0
0
107,153
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
4
4
,
0
0
0
69,080 103,620
11
,
9
8
5
1
8
,
8
1
6
2
8
,
2
2
5
Re
t
a
i
l
2
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ne
w
l
y
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
D
a
n
d
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
Mu
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
1
,
1
9
1
U
n
i
t
s
51
4
-
S
t
u
d
i
o
/
1
B
R
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
1
p
e
r
s
o
n
)
47
9
-
2
B
R
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
3
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
19
8
-
3
B
R
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
5
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
364,684 572,554
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
D
858,831
Oy
s
t
e
r
C
o
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
8
5
,
0
0
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
O
f
f
i
c
e
22
3
a
n
d
5
9
gp
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
Ta
b
l
e
4
:
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
(
a
v
g
*
1
.
5
7
)
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
(m
a
x
d
a
y
*
1
.
5
)
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
20
1
1
O
P
S
P
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ar
e
a
(a
p
p
r
o
.
S
F
)
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
Average Daily Water Demands (gal/day)Maximum Daily Water Demands (gal/day) (avg*1.57)Peak Hour Water Demand (Max Day*1.5)
Gy
m
,
H
e
a
r
t
S
c
a
n
8
7
,
5
0
0
(
A
s
s
u
m
e
1
/
3
s
p
l
i
t
)
8
,
6
9
2
1
3
,
6
4
6
2
0
,
4
6
9
R
&
D
3
1
0
,
2
0
0
R
&
D
:
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
6
9
,
1
7
5
108,604 162,906
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
8
,
6
9
2
1
3
,
6
4
6
2
0
,
4
6
9
Of
f
i
c
e
2
0
6
,
8
0
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
2
,
2
0
1
1
9
,
1
5
6
28,734 81,376 127,760 191,640
Oy
s
t
e
r
C
o
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
8
5
,
0
0
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
3
a
n
d
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
1
,
9
8
5
1
8
,
8
1
6
2
8
,
2
2
5
R
&
D
3
1
5
,
0
0
0
R
&
D
:
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
7
0
,
2
4
5
110,285 165,427
Bi
o
d
e
s
y
,
M
c
l
a
b
3
0
,
2
5
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
3
a
n
d
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4
,
2
6
5
6
,
6
9
6
1
0
,
0
4
5
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
1
0
,
0
0
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
2
,
3
9
0
19,452 29,178
16
,
2
5
0
2
5
,
5
1
3
3
8
,
2
6
9
82,635 129,737 194,605
Pe
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
S
t
a
r
G
l
a
s
s
,
US
D
A
A
n
i
m
a
l
93
,
5
0
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
3
a
n
d
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
3
,
1
8
4
2
0
,
6
9
8
3
1
,
0
4
7
R
&
D
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
R
&
D
:
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
9
3
,
6
6
0
147,046 220,569
PS
A
V
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
73
,
0
0
0
R
&
D
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
3
a
n
d
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
0
,
2
9
3
1
6
,
1
6
0
2
4
,
2
4
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
8
0
,
0
0
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
6
,
5
2
0
25,936 38,905
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
p
a
c
e
4
3
,
5
6
0
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
0
.
0
7
9
g
p
d
/
s
f
3
,
4
4
1
.
2
4
5
,
4
0
3
8
,
1
0
4
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
Sp
a
c
e
17
4
,
2
4
0
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
:
0.
0
7
9
g
p
d
.
s
f
1376521,611 32,416
26
,
9
1
8
4
2
,
2
6
1
6
3
,
3
9
1
123,945 194,594 291,890
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
2
3
9
,
0
0
0
O
p
e
n
L
a
n
d
-
-
R
&
D
3
0
4
,
8
0
0
R
&
D
:
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
6
7
,
9
7
0
106,714 160,070
Do
m
i
n
i
c
s
B
a
n
q
u
e
t
s
1
1
,
3
0
0
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
1
.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
1
2
,
4
3
0
1
9
,
5
1
5
2
9
,
2
7
3
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
0
3
,
2
0
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
1
,
9
8
9
18,822 28,234
Of
f
i
c
e
9
,
9
0
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
5
8
4
9
1
7
1
,
3
7
6
Au
x
i
l
i
a
r
y
Co
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
10
,
0
0
0
A
u
x
:
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
6
0
251 377
In
n
a
t
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
,
(m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
a
n
d
So
u
t
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
3
0
R
o
o
m
s
(
6
5
0
0
s
f
)
,
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
(
b
o
t
t
o
m
fl
o
o
r
)
9
,
9
0
0
s
f
Ho
t
e
l
13
0
g
p
d
/
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
1.
1
g
a
l
/
s
f
14
,
7
9
0
2
3
,
2
2
0
3
4
,
8
3
0
1
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
@
SF
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
80
0
O
T
H
E
R
(
R
E
S
T
)
1
.
1
g
p
d
/
s
f
8
8
0
1
,
3
8
2
2
,
0
7
2
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
&
P
a
r
k
8
2
,
7
6
4
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
0
.
0
7
9
g
p
d
/
s
f
6
,
5
3
8
1
0
,
2
6
5
1
5
,
3
9
8
35
,
2
2
2
5
5
,
2
9
9
8
2
,
9
4
9
100,767 158,204 237,305
1
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
@
SF
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
80
0
O
T
H
E
R
(
R
E
S
T
)
1
.
1
g
p
d
/
s
f
8
8
0
1
,
3
8
2
2
,
0
7
2
Dr
a
k
e
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
(
B
o
a
t
Re
p
a
i
r
S
h
o
p
)
27
,
5
0
0
C
O
M
M
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4
4
0
6
9
1
1
,
0
3
6
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
8
0
0
O
T
H
E
R
(
R
E
S
T
)
1
.
1
g
p
d
/
s
f
8
8
0
1
,
3
8
2
2
,
0
7
2
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Y
a
c
h
t
C
l
u
b
Ho
u
s
e
4,
0
0
0
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
1
.
1
g
p
d
/
s
f
4
,
4
0
0
6
,
9
0
8
1
0
,
3
6
2
Bo
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
,
s
t
o
r
e
2
,
5
0
0
Au
x
i
l
i
a
r
y
Co
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
16
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
4
0
6
3
9
4
Sh
o
p
:
9
8
5
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
l
v
d
1
,
4
4
0
R
e
t
a
i
l
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
2
3
3
6
5
4
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
1
,
3
0
0
R
e
t
a
i
l
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
2
1
3
3
4
9
2
x
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
8
0
0
O
T
H
E
R
(
R
e
s
t
)
1
.
1
g
p
d
/
s
f
1
,
7
6
0
2
,
7
6
3
4
,
1
4
5
8,
4
4
4
1
3
,
2
5
7
1
9
,
8
8
5
46,140 72,440 108,660
21
0
,
3
7
1
3
3
0
,
2
8
3
4
9
5
,
4
2
4
549,707 863,041 1,294,561
95
,
5
2
6
434,862
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
T
y
p
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
(
a
v
g
*
1
.
5
7
)
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
(m
a
x
d
a
y
*
1
.
5
Su
n
e
s
i
s
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
In
c
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
BP
O
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
7
,
4
2
3
9
0
,
1
5
3
1
3
5
,
2
3
0
Ti
t
a
n
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
s
I
n
c
(5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
BP
O
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
7
,
4
2
3
9
0
,
1
5
3
1
3
5
,
2
3
0
11
4
,
8
4
5
18
0
,
3
0
7
27
0
,
4
6
0
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
-
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
,
OF
F
,
C
O
M
M
)
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
Ph
a
s
e
I
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Sp
o
r
t
s
&
P
u
b
l
i
c
Sp
a
c
e
26
1
,
3
6
0
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
:
0.
0
7
9
g
p
d
/
s
f
20,647 48,625
35
0
H
o
t
e
l
:
1
3
0
g
p
d
/
r
o
o
m
4
5
,
5
0
0
71,435 107,153 32,416
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
-
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
640 1,005 1,507
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
To
t
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
40
,
0
0
0
1
6
g
p
d
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
Ho
t
e
l
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 10
underestimated. Planning-level factors also do not take into consideration generally average out the
impacts of drought and conservation (e.g., as in a WSA).
POTABLE WATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
A simple hydraulic model was created to simulate the ultimate water distribution system within the
OPSP planning area boundary. The model was used to analyze and evaluate the minimum pipe
diameters required to provide service under the ultimate water demand conditions for the proposed
2017 OPSP Update. Because of the planned Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard roadway
realignments, it is assumed that all new water infrastructure will be required within the proposed 2017
OPSP Update. The hydraulic model generally approximates where the new pipelines will be located,
based on the Proposed Development Program Site Plan included in the April 2017 Oyster Point Specific
Plan Appendix + Design Guidelines.
The hydraulic model was developed using the Innovyze H20Map Water software platform. Michael
Baker International requested information from Cal Water and received some data that could be used
in the model. However, Cal Water could not provide all data necessary because some data and
information were confidential. As such, various assumptions were made regarding existing hydraulic
grade lines and diurnal patterns to create and run hydraulic analysis for the proposed 2017 OPSP
Update. Therefore, the hydraulic model simulation results only include information from within the
Oyster Point area. Because information regarding the potable water system infrastructure outside the
OPSP planning area was limited or not provided, specific information regarding the water supply
infrastructure could not be modeled.
Because detailed development plans have yet to be developed, and to be conservative, the hydraulic
model was developed and analyzed as a dead-end system, meaning the system is not looped. This was
done to ensure the main distribution lines could fully supply the maximum day demand plus fire flow,
which simulates a worst-case scenario. Michael Baker recommends constructing a looped system on
Oyster Point in order to provide reliability and redundancy.
A diurnal time pattern was established to simulate system demands over a 24-hour period. Because the
land use of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update is mixed use, a blend of a typical residential time pattern
and commercial time pattern was established.
Two scenarios were developed for the analysis:
· Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow at Junction 1
· Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow at Junction 2
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
The purpose of modeling the simplified (and conservative) water distribution system was to ensure that
water can be supplied at an adequate service pressure. The typical industry standard for the minimum
pressure at any individual customer service under normal demand conditions is 40 pounds per square
inch (psi). The Uniform Plumbing Code states that the maximum allowable pressure at a service
connection is 80 psi; however, pressures in water distribution systems typically exceed this value. When
pressures in a distribution system are greater than 80 psi, pressure regulators should be installed at the
individual service connections. Most pipelines, valves, fittings, and appurtenances used in water
distribution systems are rated for a pressure of 150 psi.
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 11
Fire flow analysis was completed through the hydraulic model to determine the ability of the system to
supply the required fire flow and pressure necessary to satisfy fire protection requirements. Per the
California Fire Code, Section B102, the flow rate of a water supply, measured at 20 psi residual pressure,
must be maintained or exceeded. Fire flow requirements differ depending on building type. A reduction
in required fire flow can be obtained if automatic sprinkler systems are installed or reductions can be
made for isolated buildings or groups of builds by fire chief authorization. It is assumed that all buildings
within the development will have automatic fire sprinkler systems installed. Because the required fire
flow has yet to be determined, a fire flow demand of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) was used for a
duration of 4 hours. It is important to note that the hydraulic model does not represent the exact
location of existing fire hydrants or those that will be constructed, but instead used the model junctions
as surrogates for fire hydrants.
The calculated Maximum Day Demand (MDD) peaking factor is 1.57 times that of the Average Day
Demand (ADD). The total MDD of 1,336,150 gpm was allocated to the hydraulic model junctions based
on the proximity to the phase development and corresponding estimated demand. For the first model
scenario, a fire flow demand of 4,000 gpm was placed at the end of the system on Junction 1 (J-1) for a
duration of 4 hours during the peak usage window. The total head loss during the simulation through
the system (from the beginning junction to the end junction) was approximately 11 feet. For the second
simulation, the same fire flow was applied at Junction 2 (J-2) for a duration of 4 hours during the peak
usage window. The total head loss during the simulation through the system (from the beginning
junction to the end junction) was approximately 18 feet. Because the initial water pressure entering the
OPSP water distribution system is unknown, the pressure in the system cannot be determined, which is
why the model results are reported in total head loss.
Figure 4 (Minimum Required Water Distribution Diameters) illustrates the recommended conceptual
water distribution system. In order to maintain water velocity less than 10 feet per second and to
minimize head loss in the system during the maximum day demand plus fire flow condition, it is
recommended that the main distribution pipeline within the proposed 2017 OPSP Update be a
minimum of 16 inches in diameter. Even though it was not analyzed as a part of the hydraulic model,
Michael Baker recommended looping the water system with a minimum diameter pipe of 8 inches
starting at end of the east side of Oyster Point and connecting to the existing water system of Gull Road.
After discussion between the City and the Harbor District, it was determined the looped system would
not be necessary to achieve required water flow to service the area; therefore, Michael Baker removed
the looped 8-inch diameter pipe from the recommended water distribution system.
All hydraulic model results herein are based on assumptions that the existing Cal Water system can
provide adequate pressure and flow to the OPSP planning area boundary. Additional analysis is
recommended as more detailed development plans and system information are available.
2011 UTILITIES STUDY SUMMARY
The utilities study prepared for the OPSP EIR (Carollo 2011) estimated that buildout of the OPSP would
generate a potable water demand of 400,450 gpd. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the 2011
OPSP estimated the net change in demand would be an approximately 239,000 gpd increase over
existing conditions. The utilities study for the OPSP EIR concluded that a new 12-inch-diameter water
main would be required along the realigned Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, which
would branch off from the existing 16-inch water main in Oyster Point Boulevard. Per the OPSP utilities
FIGURE 4Minimum R equired Water Distribution Pipe Diameters
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Existing Conditions + Needs Assessment\Utility Memo\Figures REVISED\Final_M odel_Update.mxd (8/22/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
Oyster Project Bou ndary
!(Ju nctions
!(Existing Junction sDIAMETER
16" Main D istrib ution
Existing Water Pipeline
Fire-Flow Junciton (J-1)
Fire-Flow Junciton (J-2)
Oyster Point Blvd
Gull
D
r
Oyster Point Specific Plan
Boundary
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 13
study, the existing 16-inch main serving the planning area was not expected to be affected by the
development of the OPSP.
WASTEWATER
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The City of South San Francisco maintains all of its sewer system facilities and infrastructure in the city.
All wastewater from the City of South San Francisco is conveyed to the Water Quality Control Plant
(WQCP), which is located at 195 Belle Air Road in South San Francisco. The WQCP is operated and
maintained by the City and serves a population of approximately 110,500. The WQCP provides primary
and secondary wastewater treatment for the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, the Town of
Colma, and portions of the City of Daly City. The WQCP design capacity for average dry weather flow is
13 million gallons per day (mgd). The City of South San Francisco is entitled to approximately 74% of
the available treatment capacity of the WQCP. In 2016, average daily influent flows were 8.27 mgd for
South San Francisco and San Bruno combined (Schumacker 2017).
Figure 5 shows the sewer system in the OPSP planning area as well as conveyance lines to the WQCP.
Within the boundaries of the OPSP planning area, there are approximately 8,800 linear feet of sewer
pipelines that range in diameter from 2.5 inches to 8 inches and consist of gravity and force mains. The
locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 5 (Oyster Point Existing Wastewater Collection System).
This information was derived from the GIS and AutoCAD data provided by the City of South San
Francisco. The pipe segment lengths used to determine linear footage were based on the shape lengths
in GIS, with accuracy crossed-checked by comparing the measurements with non-GIS imagery. The
linear footage of pipeline and the corresponding pipeline diameters are listed in Table 5.
Table 5: Existing OPSP Sewer Network
Type of Main Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
Gravity mains
Service Connection 485
2.5 334
3 548
4 939
6 1,334
8
750
Force mains
4
1,925
8
2,497
Total Pipe Length 8,812
FIGURE 5OPSP Planning Area Existing Wastew ater C ollection System
#
#
#
#
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway Blvd
Grand Ave
Harbor Way
Bayshore Fwy
Forbes Blvd
Utah Ave
Mitchell Ave
Existing Pump Station
PS-4
PS-2
PS-1
12 10
30
1 5
15
15
12
1 0
1
2
27
27
6
10
27
86
27
18
2
1
12
WQCP
Oyster Point
4
3
8
6
2.5
8 4
8 8
6
6
4
8
8
8
6
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Sewer\GIS_Sewer\Updated Sewer.mxd (8/23/2017)
0 500 1,000
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legend
#Pump S tation
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Manhole to Serve Project
Sewer Gravity Main to Serve Project
Sewer Force Main to Serve Project
Sewer Main
OPSP
8
8
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 15
The conveyance system from the OPSP boundary to the WQCP consists of approximately 9,100 linear
feet of gravity mains and 5,100 linear feet of force mains. The approximate linear footage and the
corresponding pipeline diameters are listed in Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 6: Existing Gravity Sewer Network from the OPSP to the WQCP
Gravity Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
6 766
8 1,408
10 1,007
12 949
15 2,000
18 524
21 557
27 1,757
30 145
Total Pipe Length 9,113
Table 7: Existing Force Sewer Network from the OPSP to the WQCP
Force Main Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
8 1,100
10 700
21 3,300
Total Pipe Length 5,100
Table 8 lists the gravity main’s materials per the GIS data as well as the corresponding calculated lengths.
The primary material is vitrified clay pipe (approximately 86%). Asbestos cement pipe comprises less
than approximately 4%. The composition of the remaining pipe material is unknown. Force main
material data was not included in the data provided by the City.
Table 8: OPSP Gravity Main Pipe Material
Gravity Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
Vitrified Clay (VCP) 9,559
Asbestos Cement (ACP) 402
Unknown 3,542
Total Length 13,503
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 16
SEWER SYSTEM PROJECTS
The City funds sewer system operations, maintenance, and capital projects through four funding
revenues, as described in the City’s (2014) Sewer System Master Plan:
1. Non-Major Governmental Funds: East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee Fund
2. Major Government Funds: Capital Improvement Fund
3. Proprietary Funds: Sewer Enterprise Fund
4. Non-Major Proprietary Funds: Sewer Capacity Charge Fund
The City of South San Francisco (2016) Adopted Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) –
Sanitary Sewer Projects, Fiscal Year 2016–17, identifies 11 new proposed projects and the continuation
of 7 ongoing projects. Proposed CIP projects to improve South San Francisco’s sanitary sewer
infrastructure consist of the following:
Proposed New Project and Additional Appropriations – Sanitary Sewer
1. Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
2. Littlefield Avenue (South) Sanitary Sewer Sub Trunk Repair/Upgrade
3. WQCP Digester and Wet Weather Improvements Project (combined with ss1308)
4. Plant-Wide Industrial Re-Coating Program
5. Vactor-Sweeper Waste Receiving Station Improvement
6. Sewer Pump Station No. 9 Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Replacement
7. Water Quality Control Plant Maintenance Building Roof Replacement
8. Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade
9. Water Quality Control Plant Secondary Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 Rehabilitation
10. Water Quality Control Plan Effluent Storage Basin Liner Replacement
11. Water Quality Control Plan Switchgear and Cogeneration Controls Upgrades
Ongoing Sanitary Sewer Projects
1. Recycled Water Financial Feasibility Study
2. WQCP Solar Photovoltaic System
3. Water Quality Control Plant Flow Monitoring
4. Pump Station No. 4 Force Main Contingency Pipes Under Utah Avenue
5. WQCP Web-Based Monitoring Projects
6. Sodium Hypochlorite Storage Tank Replacement Project
There are no 2016–17 CIP sanitary sewer projects within the OPSP planning area; however, proposed
project 8 (Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade) will directly affect wastewater collection in the OPSP planning
area because the current pump station’s firm capacity would be exceeded by proposed future project
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 17
flows, per the 2011 Carollo utilities study. The CIP does not list specific areas of rehabilitation of
proposed project 1. Proposed projects 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 will indirectly benefit the OPSP because
they will maintain and improve the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP).
All ongoing projects may indirectly benefit the OPSP because they also maintain and improve the WQCP
as well as evaluate potential other uses of recycled water from the plant.
Pump Station No. 1 is located within the OPSP planning area and conveys wastewater flow through an
8-inch force main. The 12-inch force main connects to an 8-inch pipeline segment near the intersection
of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive. As described in the OPSP EIR, a roadway realignment will be
completed of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards. Because of the realignment, Pump Station No. 1 will
be abandoned and a new pump station will be constructed within the OPSP planning area. This
improvement is identified in the updated OPSP as a component of Phases III and IV of the residential
development (City of South San Francisco 2017b). This pump station will include three wet-well
submersible pumps, and a new 8-inch diameter force main will connect to the existing 8-inch gravity
segment located near the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive.
Pump Station No. 2, located at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards, consists of two
17-horsepower pumps with a combined capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute. Per the Oyster Point
Business Park and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan completed by Carollo Engineers in January 2011,
the firm and total capacities of Pump Station No. 2 are 1.44 million gallons per day (mgd) and 2.88 mgd,
respectively. Per the 2016–17 CIP, Pump Station No. 2 will be upgraded to accommodate new growth
in the Oyster Point area.
From Pump Station No. 2, the wastewater flow is conveyed through a system of pipelines ranging in
size from 12 inches to 27 inches before entering Pump Station No. 4, located near the intersection of
Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue. Per the Master Plan, Pump Station No. 4 consists of four new 70-
horsepower motors and four new 3,000-gallon-per-minute pumps for a firm and total capacity of 12.9
mgd and 17.3 mgd, respectively.
According to information provided by the City, there is a pump station in the east side of the OPSP
planning area.
WASTEWATER GENERATION FACTORS AND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Wastewater generation factors used to calculate the flow rates were obtained from the East of Highway
101 Sewer System Master Plan, completed by Akel Engineering Group in January 2012. Because the
Master Plan did not include residential generation factors, City Public Works Department staff
recommended using the general wastewater flow rates published in Metcalf & Eddy “Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment and Reuse” (Bautista 2017). For multi-family dwelling units, Metcalf & Eddy
estimates that approximately 120 gallons per bedroom of wastewater is produced daily. To be
conservative, City Public Works staff recommended using a general flow rate of 400 gallons per 1,000
square feet of building for buildings with unknown land use (Bautista 2017). Table 9 lists the wastewater
generation flow rate factors used to determine wastewater generation.
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 18
Table 9: Wastewater Generation Factors
Land Use Type Use Type
Coefficient Units
Research and Development (R&D) 201 gpd/1,000 sf
Industrial (IND) 413 gpd/1,000 sf
Combined (R&D/COM/IND) 570 gpd/1,000 sf
Hotel Commercial (HCOM) 117 gpd/ room
Commercial Retail (COMI) 14 gpd/1,000 sf
Commercial Office (OFF) 53 gpd/1,000 sf
Multifamily Units 120 gpd/bedroom
Restaurant 400 gpd/1,000 sf
Other 400 gpd/1,000 sf
Assumptions regarding land use types and building square footage were made in order to complete
the wastewater generation flow rate calculations for existing buildings. In order to assign flow rate
factors, land use types were assumed for all existing buildings. Often, the existing buildings contain
several different commercial uses such as commercial, research and development (R&D), and offices.
For these types of combined-use buildings, a combined flow rate factor was applied. Figure 6 (Existing
Land Use Type) shows the land use types assigned to each existing building within the OPSP planning
area boundary.
If the square footage of an existing building was unknown, it was estimated from aerial maps. Other use
and square footage assumptions had to be made, such as for the Inn at Oyster Point, located along
Marina Boulevard. This building is a 30-room hotel and restaurant. For wastewater generation, it was
assumed that the bottom floor (approximately 9,900 square feet) houses the restaurant and all other
floors are used as the hotel. Therefore, a factor of 1.1 gallons per day per square foot was applied to the
9,900-square-foot bottom floor, and a factor of 130 gallons per day per room was applied to the 30 hotel
rooms.
For potable water demand, the analysis assumes there would be 1,191 multi-family dwelling units per
the proposed 2017 OPSP Update planning application, with the breakdown of units as follows:
· 514 Studio/1-Bedroom Units
· 479 2-Bedroom Units
· 198 3-Bedroom Units
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update Phase IIC land use has not been determined; therefore, wastewater
generation was not calculated for this phase.
FIGURE 6Existing Land Use Type
Oyster Point Blvd
M
arin
a Blv
d
Oyster Point Specific Plan Boundary
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\LandUseType.m xd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Le gend
Combined
Commerical
Hotel
Office
R&D
Restaurant
Restroom
Retail
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 20
WASTEWATER GENERATION FLOWRATE CALCULATION
Table 10 and Table 11 present estimated and projected average daily wastewater generation for the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update and approved 2011 OPSP, respectively. The wastewater generated by the
two five-story pharmaceutical buildings immediately east of the northern part of the OPSP planning
area have been included in the total existing and total proposed flow rates because these buildings will
remain and connect to the sewer system that will serve the proposed 2017 OPSP Update. The
wastewater generation associated with these two buildings is identified as Existing Unchanged in
Tables 10 and Table 11. Existing wastewater generation in each table is identical for comparison
purposes. Table 10 presents demand estimates for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update compared to
estimated existing demand. Table 11 presents demand estimated for the OPSP assuming buildout as
approved in 2011. In each of the tables, the existing buildings located in the OPSP planning area are
organized by the phase that most closely corresponds to the proposed phasing in the 2017 OPSP
Update, along with demand subtotals, for easy side-by-side comparison. Both tables list the land use
type, building or land use type square footage, and estimated wastewater generation.
Implementation of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would generate 629,026 gpd of wastewater, or an
additional 462,443 gpd of wastewater over existing conditions. This includes the contribution from the
two five-story buildings outside the planning area, which are included in the model. The largest
contributor to wastewater flows in the 2017 OPSP Update would be from the 1,191 multi-family
dwelling units in Phase IID and Phase IVD.
A comparison of total projected wastewater flows for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update with the flows
projected for the approved OPSP shows that the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in an
additional 149,371 gallons per day of wastewater than would be generated by buildout of the approved
OPSP (Table 10).
WASTEWATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
A simple hydraulic model of the ultimate wastewater system in the proposed 2017 OPSP Update was
created to analyze the ultimate wastewater flow conditions and to identify the minimum pipe diameter
requirements. Conceptual plans for the proposed 2017 OPSP Update indicate that new roadways will
be constructed which will be aligned differently from the existing roadways. The new development
layout will result in very little of the existing infrastructure being salvaged, and new wastewater
pipelines will need to be constructed in the Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard roadway
realignment. The hydraulic model approximates where the new pipelines will be located.
The hydraulic model was developed using the Innovyze H20Map Sewer software platform. Various
assumptions were made regarding pipe material, slopes, invert elevations, and pipe and junction
locations to create and run simulations in the hydraulic model of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Junctions are a model network element that typically represent manhole locations and are used to
allocate the proposed wastewater loading conditions. Manhole rim elevations were assumed based on
existing surface elevations obtained from available aerial maps. Junctions were loaded with wastewater
generation based on the total generation calculated in Table 10. Wastewater generation loads were
distributed to the junctions located in proximity to the corresponding project phase.
Because the ultimate development plans have not been developed, the purpose of the hydraulic
analysis was to determine the minimum pipe diameters required to serve the ultimate flows based on
Ta
b
l
e
1
0
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
F
T
)
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(g
p
d
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
OP
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
La
n
d
U
s
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
Generation (gpd)
Gy
m
,
H
e
a
r
t
S
c
a
n
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
8
7
,
5
0
0
1
1
,
1
1
3
Mu
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
:
5
1
4
-
S
t
u
d
i
o
/
1
BR
;
4
7
9
-
2
B
R
;
1
9
8
-
3
B
R
1191 Units247,920
Oy
s
t
e
r
C
o
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
8
5
,
0
0
0
1
0
,
7
9
5
Bi
o
d
e
s
y
,
M
c
l
a
b
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
3
0
,
2
5
0
3
,
8
4
2
25
,
7
4
9
248,228
Pe
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
S
t
a
r
G
l
a
s
s
,
U
S
D
A
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
9
3
,
5
0
0
1
1
,
8
7
5
R&
D
6
2
5
,
2
0
0
1
2
5
,
6
6
5
OF
F
I
C
E
4
1
7
,
0
0
0
2
2
,
1
0
1
CO
M
I
2
8
,
0
0
0
3
9
2
21
,
1
4
6
148,158
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
O
p
e
n
L
a
n
d
2
3
9
,
0
0
0
-
Do
m
i
n
i
c
s
B
a
n
q
u
e
t
s
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
1
1
,
3
0
0
4,
5
2
0
2
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
@
S
F
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
64
0
Dr
a
k
e
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
(
B
o
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
S
h
o
p
)
C
O
M
I
2
7
,
5
0
0
38
5
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
C
O
M
I
)
1
,
3
0
0
18
5,
5
6
3
56,950
Of
f
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
9
,
9
0
0
5
2
5
R&
D
3
0
4
,
8
0
0
61,265
OF
F
I
C
E
2
0
3
,
2
0
0
10,770
Co
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
(
C
O
M
I
)
1
0
,
0
0
0
140
7,
9
9
5
72,174
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
3
2
0
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Y
a
c
h
t
C
l
u
b
H
o
u
s
e
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
4
,
0
0
0
1
,
6
0
0
Bo
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
,
s
t
o
r
e
C
O
M
I
2
,
5
0
0
3
5
Sh
o
p
:
9
8
5
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
l
v
d
C
O
M
I
1
,
4
4
0
2
0
2
x
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
6
4
0
2,
6
1
5
0
16
6
,
5
8
3
629,026
63
,
0
6
8
525,511 462,443 149,371
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(g
p
d
)
Su
n
e
s
i
s
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
I
n
c
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
51
,
5
0
0
s
q
f
t
p
e
r
f
l
o
o
r
R&
D
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
1
,
7
5
8
Ti
t
a
n
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
s
I
n
c
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
R
&
D
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
1
,
7
5
8
10
3
,
5
1
5
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ne
w
l
y
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
40,950
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
40,000 16,000
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
D
Ph
a
s
e
I
C
Ho
t
e
l
(
H
C
O
M
)
350
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
D
a
n
d
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
CO
M
I
2
2
,
0
0
0
3
0
8
Total Phase Generation
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
f
r
o
m
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
m
a
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
PS
A
V
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
7
3
,
0
0
0
9
,
2
7
1
In
n
a
t
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
,
(
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
a
n
d
So
u
t
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
H
o
t
e
l
(
H
C
O
M
)
3
0
R
o
o
m
s
(
6
5
0
0
s
f
)
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
(
b
o
t
t
o
m
f
l
o
o
r
)
9,
9
0
0
s
f
7,
4
7
0
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
-
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
Ph
a
s
e
I
D
Total Phase Generation Total Phase Generation
To
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
To
t
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Total Phase Generation
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
C
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
C
i
t
y
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
U
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
-
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
Ta
b
l
e
1
1
:
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
g
p
d
)
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
Wastewater Generation (gpd)
R&
D
3
1
0
,
2
0
0
6
2
,
3
5
0
OF
F
2
0
6
,
8
0
0
1
0
,
9
6
0
11
,
1
1
3
73,311
Oy
s
t
e
r
C
o
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
8
5
,
0
0
0
1
0
,
7
9
5
R&
D
3
1
5
,
0
0
0
63,315
Bi
o
d
e
s
y
,
M
c
l
a
b
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
3
0
,
2
5
0
3
,
8
4
2
OF
F
2
1
0
,
0
0
0
11,130
14
,
6
3
7
74,445
Pe
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
S
t
a
r
G
l
a
s
s
,
U
S
D
A
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
9
3
,
5
0
0
1
1
,
8
7
5
R
&
D
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
84,420
PS
A
V
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
7
3
,
0
0
0
9
,
2
7
1
O
F
F
2
8
0
,
0
0
0
14,840
21
,
1
4
6
99,260
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
O
p
e
n
L
a
n
d
2
3
9
,
0
0
0
-
R&
D
3
0
4
,
8
0
0
61,265
Do
m
i
n
i
c
s
B
a
n
q
u
e
t
s
R
e
s
t
1
1
,
3
0
0
4
5
2
0
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
0
3
,
2
0
0
10,770
Of
f
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
9
,
9
0
0
5
2
5
CO
M
I
1
0
,
0
0
0
140
In
n
a
t
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
,
(
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
So
u
t
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
HC
O
M
3
0
R
o
o
m
s
(
6
5
0
0
s
f
)
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
(
b
o
t
t
o
m
fl
o
o
r
)
9
,
9
0
0
s
f
7,
4
7
0
1
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
@
S
F
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
3
2
0
12
,
8
3
5
72,174
1
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
@
S
F
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
3
2
0
HC
O
M
3
5
0
4
0
,
9
5
0
Dr
a
k
e
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
(
B
o
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
S
h
o
p
)
C
O
M
I
2
7
,
5
0
0
3
8
5
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
3
2
0
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Y
a
c
h
t
C
l
u
b
H
o
u
s
e
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
4
,
0
0
0
1
,
6
0
0
Bo
a
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
,
s
t
o
r
e
C
O
M
I
2
,
5
0
0
3
5
Sh
o
p
:
9
8
5
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
l
v
d
C
O
M
I
1
,
4
4
0
2
0
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
O
M
I
1
,
3
0
0
1
8
2
x
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
O
T
H
E
R
8
0
0
6
4
0
3,
3
3
8
56,950
16
6
,
5
8
3
479,655
63
,
0
6
8
376,140
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
S
F
)
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
g
p
d
)
Su
n
e
s
i
s
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
I
n
c
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
5
1
,
5
0
0
sq
f
t
p
e
r
f
l
o
o
r
25
7
,
5
0
0
R
&
D
5
1
,
7
5
8
Ti
t
a
n
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
s
I
n
c
(
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
R
&
D
5
1
,
7
5
8
10
3
,
5
1
5
16,000
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
To
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
&
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
+
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
-
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
1
1
O
P
S
P
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
O
u
s
i
d
e
o
f
O
P
S
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
Gy
m
,
H
e
a
r
t
S
c
a
n
,
U
.
S
.
D
e
p
t
A
g
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
R
&
D
&
O
F
F
)
8
7
,
5
0
0
1
1
,
1
1
3
P
h
a
s
e
I
V
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
-
-
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
I
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Total Phase Generation Total Phase Generation Total Phase Generation Total Phase Generation Total Phase Generation
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
40,000
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 23
conservative assumptions. Oyster Point is relatively flat, so it was assumed that each gravity pipe
segment would be constructed at the minimum allowable slope, per the criteria identified in the
January 2012 East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update, and as summarized in Table 12.
Pipe beginning and ending invert elevations were calculated based on minimum slope requirements.
A Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.013 was used for all wastewater pipes.
Table 12: Minimum Pipe Slope
Pipe Size (inches) Minimum Slope (ft/ft)
8 0.0026
10 0.0019
12 0.0015
15 0.0011
Pump Station No. 1 will need to be relocated to accommodate the planned redevelopment of the area.
The analysis assumes that all flow generated within the OPSP planning area boundary will be routed to
the new Pump Station No. 1 location. Pump Station No. 1 will need to be constructed to serve an
ultimate daily flow of 629,000 gpd. Pump Station No. 1 will boost flows to the existing gravity sewer line
in Oyster Point Boulevard, where flows will be conveyed to the WQCP.
WASTEWATER HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS
The hydraulic model was utilized to evaluate the wastewater collection system during a peak wet
weather flow condition. The wet weather peaking factor of 2.22 was derived by dividing the projected
peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 7.96 mgd by the average dry weather flow (ADWF), projected to be
3.58 mgd, as identified in the January 2012, East of Highway 101: Sewer System Master Plan Update.
Figure 7 (Minimum Required Wastewater Pipe Diameter) illustrates the recommended minimum pipe
diameter required to meet the City’s wetted perimeter (d/D) criteria of no fuller than 75%. A short
segment of 6-inch-diameter and a small portion of 8-inch-diameter pipeline can remain, but all others
will need to be upsized. The diameters shown in Figure 7 are the recommended upsized diameters to
obtain a flow lower than or equal to 75% of the pipe capacity.
The estimated peak wet weather flow rate calculated for the project area, which will be influent into the
pump station, equals 812 gpm (1.17 mgd). The upsized Pump Station No. 1 capacity should be sized to
meet this peak-hour flow plus additional flow generated from the unknown (to be determined) land
use of Phase IIC. Future analysis of the wastewater generated by Phase IIC should be conducted to
determine the impacts on the system. It is assumed that the existing pump station located on the
eastern side of Oyster Point will require upgrades to accommodate the increased flow generated from
the unknown land use of Phase IIC.
To ascertain systemwide impacts of the wastewater conveyance network from Oyster Point to the
WQCP, data regarding wastewater flow entering the system along the conveyance network would be
required for further analysis. As stated previously, the City of South San Francisco (2016) Adopted
Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – Sanitary Sewer Projects, Fiscal Year 2016–17,
proposes improvement projects that include upsizing Pump Station No. 2 and Pump Station No. 4 as
well as general sanitary sewer rehabilitation. Because the proposed 2017 OPSP Update will increase the
FIGURE 7Minimum R equired Wastewater Pipe Diam eters
#
#!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
8
10
15
8 88
8
10
8
10
6
8
10
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Sewer\G IS_Sewer\PipeDiameters.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
LEGEND
Oyster Point Specific Plan Boundary
Conceptual Roadway Alignment
#Pump Station
!ManholeDIAMETER
Existing Sewer
Force Main
Existing 6"
8
10
15
FUTURE HOTELSITEOPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
OFFICE / R&D
OFFICE / R&D
RESID ENTIAL
OFFICE / R&D
CITY VISIONING PROCESS UNDERWAY
Relocated Pump Station No . 1
Upsized Existing Pu mp Station
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 25
flow within the conveyance system, it is recommended that these improvements be designed to
handle the increased capacity.
2011 UTILITIES STUDY SUMMARY
The utilities study prepared for the OPSP EIR (Carollo 2011) reported that the existing average daily dry
weather wastewater flow produced in the Oyster Point area was 90,000 gpd. Buildout flows were
estimated to be 370,000 gpd, or a net increase of 280,000 gpd over existing conditions. The utilities
study concluded that abandoning Pump Station No. 1 and constructing a new pump station at the
realigned intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, as well as the upsizing of Pump
Station No. 2, would be sufficient to convey the increased wastewater generated by the OPSP.
STORMWATER
The City of South San Francisco operates and maintains the stormwater drainage system that serves the
OPSP planning area. The existing stormwater drainage system consists of approximately 13,220 linear
feet of stormwater drainage pipes, 88 stormwater drainage inlets, and 11 stormwater manholes. The
system contains various disconnected drainage networks that discharge directly to San Francisco Bay
through at least 16 outfalls and one channel. Figure 8 shows the existing storm drainage system in the
OPSP planning area. Detailed information about drainage pipe diameters and materials was not
available in map data provided by the City.
Figure 9 (Changes in Impervious Surface) summarizes information about the current pervious and
impervious acreages within the OPSP planning area. Approximately 50% of the OPSP planning area is
currently covered with impervious surfaces. Phase I and the remaining development phases’ pre-
project, post-project, and overall net change of pervious and impervious areas are shown in Figure 9, as
is the estimated pre-project area of Phase IIC. Because the planning process is currently under way for
the development of Phase IIC, stormwater analysis cannot be completed for that phase at this time.
OPSP Phase I development will be constructed per the OPSP approved in 2011. This will include the
roadway reconfiguration of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard as well as the demolition of
the Oyster Point Inn, the marina servicing building, and adjacent office buildings. The OPSP Phase I
development includes the entire area identified as Phase I as well as the open space along the Oyster
Point cove and a portion of the area identified as the Future Hotel. Total area affected by the approved
OPSP Phase I will be 32.8 acres, as identified in the Carollo 2011 utilities study.
As reported in the 2011 Carollo utilities study, buildout of the entire approved OPSP would increase the
impervious area by approximately 3 acres, and the increased stormwater flow was anticipated to be
mitigated through the implementation of the requirements of Provision C.3 of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit. Per the proposed 2017 OPSP Update,
the remaining development area in the approved OPSP consists of 29.9 acres north of OPSP Phase I. It is
anticipated the impervious surface in that area will increase by 0.8 acre. Because the anticipated increased
stormwater flow from the additional 0.8 acre is low and runoff must be mitigated through the
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development (LID) design per the
requirements of NPDES Permit Provision C.3, this would not affect storm drainage system capacity.
FIGURE 8OPSP Planning Area Existing Storm water Drainage System
"
"
""""""""""
""
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6
"6"6
"6
"6"6
"6"6
"6
"6
"6
"6
"6 "6"6
"6
"6
Oyste r Po in t B lvd
Forbes Blvd
Bayshore Fwy
Eccles A ve
Veterans Blvd
33
38
48
36
15
3912
12
12
1 2
1 2
12
27
12
21
18
15
15
18
1 2
1 2
18
1 2
Oyster Point
12
15
24
8
18 18
12
15
1
2 8
1212
1 2 1 2
1
2
24
8
27
33
12
38
24
48
18
15
21
30
30
15
15
12
27
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\SD_Updated.mxd (8/23/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Legen d
Oyster Point
"6 Drainag e Inlet
"Stormwater O utletManholeMaterialRCPCMPPEUnkChannel
FIGURE 9Changes in Impervious Surface
W:\South San Francisco, City of\158119 Oyster Point Phase 2\2_Work Product\Storm\GIS_StormDrain\OPD_Pervious.mxd (8/24/2017)
0 250 500
FEET
Source: ESRI.
Lege nd
Phase I Development
Proposed 2017 OPSP Update
Pervious Land
Are a (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of AreaPervious Area 17.9 54 20.8 63 2.9 9Impervious Area 14.9 46 12 37 -2.9 -9Total Area 32.8 100 32.8 100 0 0
Pre-Project Post-Project Ne t-ChangesPhase I Deve lopment as Previously Approved
Are a (ac)% of AreaPervious Are a 11.7 67.63Impervious Area 5.6 32.37Total Area 17.3 100
Pre-Project Phase IIC Developme nt Concept
Are a (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of Area Area (ac)% of AreaPervious Area 8.0 26.9 7.2 24.08 -0.8 -2.82Impervious Area 21.9 73.1 22.7 75.92 0.8 2.82Total Area 29.9 100 29.9 100 0 0
Proposed 2017 OPSP UpdatePre-Project Post-Project Ne t-Changes
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 28
It should be noted that a portion of the Oyster Point Development, Phase IID, is located in an area
mapped as a 100-year floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Specific
building requirements are required within 100-year floodplains.
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE
Michael Baker has prepared cost estimates for the recommended water and wastewater system
improvements described above, which is presented at the end of this document. The estimated
construction costs developed at this phase of project development are based on assumptions and
planning level contingencies. The costs estimates assume all construction will be performed using
standard methods, and they do not account for project site unknowns, such as hazardous materials,
excessive groundwater, and deep construction. The costs are estimated in 2017 dollars.
City of South San Francisco
RE: Proposed 2017 OPSP Update Utilities Analysis
Page 29
REFERENCES
Akel Engineering Group. 2012. East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update. Prepared for
Carollo Engineers.
Bautista, Sam. 2017. Principal Engineer, City of South San Francisco Engineering Division. Email
correspondence and telephone conversation with Maren Sinclair, Civil Associate, Michael Baker
International. March 23.
Cal Water (California Water Service). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco
District.
Carollo Engineers. 2011. Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan Utilities
Study.
City of South San Francisco. 2014. Sewer System Management Plan.
http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/9917.
———. 2016. Adopted Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan, Fiscal Year 2016–17.
———. 2017. Oyster Point: Update to February 23, 2011, Specific Plan Appendix + Design Guidelines
(April 12, 2017).
Lamphier-Gregory. 2011. Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2010022070.
Schumacker, Brian. 2017. Plant Superintendent, South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant. Email
to Alice Tackett, Planner, Michael Baker International. February 14.
It
e
m
N
o
.
I
t
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
Un
i
t
U
n
i
t
C
o
s
t
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
1
In
s
t
a
l
l
8
-
i
n
c
h
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
33
7
0
L
F
$
3
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
1
7
9
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
In
s
t
a
l
l
1
6
-
i
n
c
h
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
48
4
0
L
F
$
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
1
7
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
3
5
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
3
5
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
3
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
6
7
,
8
7
5
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
$
4
,
3
6
4
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
Pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
t
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
a
l
l
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
a
p
p
u
r
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
s
(
v
a
l
v
e
s
,
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
m
e
t
e
r
s
,
B
F
P
,
f
i
r
e
h
y
d
r
a
n
t
s
,
b
l
o
w
-
o
f
f
v
a
l
v
e
s
,
a
i
r
/
v
a
c
s
)
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
l
i
n
e
a
r
u
n
i
t
c
o
s
t
.
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
o
r
e
s
c
a
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
:
Un
i
t
c
o
s
t
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
u
l
l
-
w
i
d
t
h
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
o
r
J
a
c
k
&
B
o
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
&
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
s
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
@
1
0
%
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
@
1
5
%
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
&
L
e
g
a
l
@
5
%
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Wa
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
P
h
a
s
e
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
It
e
m
N
o
.
I
t
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
U
n
i
t
C
o
s
t
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
1
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
8
-
i
n
c
h
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
2
1
9
0
L
F
3
4
0
.
0
0
$
7
4
4
,
6
1
9
.
4
9
$
2
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
1
0
-
i
n
c
h
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
1
1
0
3
L
F
3
8
0
.
0
0
$
4
1
9
,
2
2
2
.
8
4
$
3
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
1
5
-
i
n
c
h
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
1
5
7
L
F
4
8
0
.
0
0
$
7
5
,
1
5
6
.
3
6
$
4
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
F
o
r
c
e
M
a
i
n
25
0
4
L
F
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
5
1
,
1
7
5
.
1
4
$
5
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
26
E
A
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
A
b
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
/
D
e
m
o
o
f
E
x
.
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
1
1
E
A
1
0
0
,
0
00
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
e
w
/
U
p
s
i
z
e
d
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
1
1
E
A
2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
U
p
s
i
z
e
d
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
1
E
A
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5,
6
0
0
,
1
7
3
.
8
1
$
56
0
,
0
1
7
.
3
8
$
84
0
,
0
2
6
.
0
7
$
28
0
,
0
0
8
.
6
9
$
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
7
,
2
8
0
,
2
2
5
.
9
6
$
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
t
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
th
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
l
i
n
e
a
r
u
n
i
t
c
o
s
t
.
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
o
r
e
s
c
a
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
:
Un
i
t
c
o
s
t
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
u
l
l
-
w
i
d
t
h
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
o
r
J
a
c
k
&
B
o
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
&
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
s
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
&
L
e
g
a
l
@
5
%
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
P
h
a
s
e
C
o
s
t
E
st
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
@
1
5
%
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
@
1
0
%