HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-28 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, November 28, 2018
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
November 28, 2018Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday,
November 28, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo
Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call to Order
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Study Session regarding South San Francisco Fire Department Standards of Coverage
and Ambulance Transport Assessment (Richard Lee, Director of Finance; Jess
Magallanes, Fire Chief; Stewart Gary, Citygate Associates)
1.
A study session regarding the Homeless Emergency Aid Program, a grant opportunity
offered by the State of California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council,
pursuant to Senate Bill 850. (Eliza Manchester, Special Projects Manager and Laura
Bent, Chief Operating Officer, Samaritan House)
2.
Study Session regarding the preferred alternative for the OMP Stormwater Capture
Project (No. sd1801), and authorizing staff to prepare plans, specifications and
estimates (PS&E). (Justin Lovell, Public Works Administrator)
3.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/17/2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-904 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:1.
Study Session regarding South San Francisco Fire Department Standards of Coverage and Ambulance
Transport Assessment (Richard Lee,Director of Finance;Jess Magallanes,Fire Chief;Stewart Gary,Citygate
Associates)
RECOMMENDATION
This is an information only item.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this study session is to provide the City of South San Francisco Council and the community
with the background,findings,and recommendations of a standards of coverage study and performance
evaluation of the City’s fire department including,fire protection,rescue,emergency medical service,and
ambulance transportation.
On February 22,2017,the City Council asked for an overall assessment of the Fire Department to be completed
by a third party.In the Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget,Council appropriated funding for the study and staff
prepared and issued a request for proposal to solicit consultants to perform the study.Three consulting firms
submitted proposals and two were interviewed by a panel consisting of two Fire Chiefs from other San Mateo
County communities and an internal Financial Services Manager.The panel consistently rated Citygate
Associates the strongest firm based on the following four categories:quality and experience,proposal quality
and responsiveness, fit, and cost.
Citygate Associates,led by Chief Stewart Gary and his team,has performed over 300 fire service studies.They
also are very versed in San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco’s unique risks and deployment
challenges.
City staff provided extensive data including but not limited to previous studies,planning documents,budgets,
staffing requirements,incident response,deployment,and potential City buildout.This information was
supplemented with numerous meetings with the consultants,tours of the City and its fire stations and meetings
with additional City staff.
Findings
Citygate Associates analyzed all the data and provided a report to the City that contained these summarized
findings of the department:
·It is well organized and funded to achieve its mission.
·It is a high performing organization.
·It consists of highly competent committed staff who provide a high quality of service.
·The City’s infrastructure including roads,and traffic congestion make it difficult to serve some areas of
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/21/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-904 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:1.
the City quickly.
Recommendations
Based on these findings Citygate Associates has made recommendations to improve response performance and
ambulance operations:
Response Performance Recommendation
·If funding allows, relocate Station 62 to better serve developing areas East of 101.
·Adopt and update response time policy.
·Continue and expand the use of the daytime Basic Life Support Ambulance.
·Continue to monitor the workload of the paramedic ambulances and,when one or both are saturated,
add a peak-hour-of-the-day paramedic or basic ambulance.
Ambulance Recommendation
·The City should not exit the ambulance service provision at this time.
·The City should continue to evaluate ambulance transport services every two years until federal
healthcare reform impacts on emergency medicine become stable.
FISCAL IMPACT
This is an information only item; there is no applicable fiscal impact at this time.
CONCLUSION
This presentation is intended to provide Council with the results of the standards of coverage study and
performance evaluation of the City’s fire department including,fire protection,rescue,emergency medical
service and ambulance transportation.The presentation includes the findings and recommendations for
response performance and ambulance transportation services from Citygate Associates and provides Council
with data and information for future guidance and decision making.The full report is extensive and a copy has
been placed in the Council office for review. Please contact staff to request a personal copy.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/21/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
111/21/2018 www.citygateassociates.com | (916) 458-5100
Standards of Coverage and
Ambulance Transport Assessment
City of South San Francisco
Presented on November 28, 2018
2
•Well organized and funded to achieve mission
•High-performing organization
•Highly competent and committed staff
•High-quality customer service
•City’s road network, and daily traffic
congestion, make it difficult to serve some
areas of the City quickly
Overall Summary of City
Fire/Ambulance Services
3
•Time-temperature curve in building fires
•EMS survivability in cardiac arrest and fatal
medical emergencies
•Suppress other outdoor fires before they
spread to buildings and wildland areas
Service-Level Goals
5
•Daily demand of 20.23 incidents
•67.19 percent of the incidents are medical
events
•Fires account for 2.67 percent of all incidents
•EMS incident counts are steadily increasing
2016 Incident Statistics Overview
6
•Relocate Station 62 as funding permits
•Adopt an update response time policy
•Continue and expand the use of the daytime
Basic Life Support Ambulance
•Monitor paramedic ambulance workload and
add a peak-hour-of-the day ambulance as
needed
Response Performance Recommendation
7
•Paramedic transportation revenues are
offsetting 79.66% of ambulance operational
costs
•The City benefits from four additional
personnel on duty per day at a reduced cost of
$982,483 versus $2,855,919
•Paramedic ambulances also augment and
support fire suppression and operational
activities
Ambulance Costs
8
•Ceasing ambulance operations in order to
save General Fund costs may be accompanied
with several uncertain steps
•Inability to guarantee the City’s 2017
ambulance response times of 9:55 minutes
•Current contracted ambulance response times
in North San Mateo County are 12:59 minutes
Reduced Ambulance Service Impacts?
9
•Citygate does not recommend exiting the
provision of ambulance services at this time
•The cost benefit of the transport services
should be re-evaluated at least every two
years
Citygate’s Ambulance Recommendation
10
Questions/Comments?
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-1021 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
A study session regarding the Homeless Emergency Aid Program, a grant opportunity offered by the State of
California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, pursuant to Senate Bill 850.(Eliza Manchester,
Special Projects Manager and Laura Bent, Chief Operating Officer, Samaritan House)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive the report and provide staff with further direction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Homeless Emergency Aid Program
In September 2018, the state’s Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) announced the
availability of Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) grant funding, which was authorized by SB 850, a
bill signed into law by Governor Brown on June 27, 2018. HEAP is a $500 million block grant program
designed to provide funding to Continuums of Care (CoCs) and large cities with populations over 330,000 to
address the homelessness crisis throughout California.
For the City of South San Francisco, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HSA) serves as the CoC
lead agency and is responsible for applying for HEAP funding for the County of San Mateo. HSA provided a
memo to all San Mateo County City Managers with information about the HEAP program. This is included as
Attachment 1.
Our CoC is potentially eligible to receive $4.9 million in HEAP funding. The grant application acceptance
period is currently open and will close on December 31, 2018. A shelter crisis declaration must be adopted by
City Council no later than December 28, 2018 in order to be considered eligible to receive HEAP funding for a
place-based homeless program in the city. The Samaritan House provides a place-based homeless program in
the City called Safe Harbor Shelter that serves adults and youths and would be eligible to receive a portion of
the HEAP funding available in our county.
As specified in SB 850, receipt of program funding is based on a public agency’s proportionate share of total
homeless population based on the 2017 homeless Point in Time (PIT) count, also known as the One Day
Homeless Count, which is conducted biannually. (Health & Saf. Code §50213(b).) The HSA identified 55
homeless persons living in South San Francisco in 2015 and 33 homeless persons in 2017. There were 1,253
homeless persons identified throughout San Mateo County in 2017 with more than half of people unsheltered
living on streets, in cars, in RVs, in tents/encampments and less than half of people living in emergency shelters
and transitional housing programs. The 2017 results show a 16% decrease in the overall homeless count
compared to 2015, with the biggest decreases made in reduced numbers of people living on the streets and in
encampments but increased numbers of people living in cars and RVs. The San Mateo County 2017 One Day
Homeless Count Executive Summary is included as Attachment 2.
Declaration of a Shelter Crisis
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/21/2018Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1021 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
One of the HEAP requirements is that the CoC must have declared an emergency shelter crisis. The declaration
does not guarantee cities or programs funding through HEAP but is required to distribute any funds. The HSA
will request that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors declare a shelter crisis for unincorporated San
Mateo County jurisdictions. Cities within San Mateo County may choose to declare a shelter crisis in order to
enable place-based homeless programs in the city to apply for HEAP funding under the CoC application. Any
place-based program, shelter facility projects or other capital projects, rental assistance, or rental subsidies
applying for HEAP funding must be located or utilized by a city that HSA declared a citywide shelter crisis in
order to receive HEAP funding.
For reference, the current locations of other shelters in San Mateo County are as follows:
·Family shelters: Burlingame, Daly City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, San Bruno
·Adult and youth shelters: East Palo Alto, Redwood City, South San Francisco
There are three important implications of passing a declaration of a shelter crisis. First, a city is immune from
liability for ordinary negligence that may arise in providing emergency housing. (Gov. Code § 8698.1(a).)
Second, with respect only to additional public facilities open to the homeless pursuant to the shelter crisis
declaration, state and local regulations regarding housing, health, or safety are suspended to ensure the shelter
crisis is mitigated. (Gov. Code § 8698.1(b).) In place of such standards, political subdivisions may enact
minimal health and safety standards that operate during the housing emergency. Third, once a shelter crisis is
declared, a city “may allow persons unable to obtain housing to occupy designated public facilities during the
duration of the state of emergency.” (Gov. Code § 8698.2(b).) A “public facility” includes parks, schools, and
vacant or underutilized facilities which are owned, operated, leased, and/or maintained by a city.
If the City Council chooses to adopt a shelter crisis declaration, a draft shelter crisis declaration is included as
Attachment 3 and limits the declaration to the location of the Samaritan House so that the City’s local
standards of housing, health, or safety shall remain in effect. (Gov. Code § 8698.2(a)(2); 869821(b).)
Samaritan House and Safe Harbor
The 2017 One Day Homeless Count and Survey produced by the County of San Mateo Human Service Agency
recorded 33 unsheltered people in the City of South San Francisco. Samaritan House operates Safe Harbor
shelter (a 90 bed facility), which is housed in the City of South San Francisco and served 566 unduplicated
individuals, 265 of which identified being from South San Francisco. These individuals are by nature of
needing Emergency Shelter, homeless. Each day, the Life Moves Homeless Outreach teams identify people
who are assessed through the Samaritan House Coordinated Entry System and are defined (based on the HUD
definition) as being homeless.
The Samaritan House Diversion team works with individuals needing housing assistance to help identify
resources to divert them from shelter and into a more stable housing situation. When that option is not available
and the person is identified as truly homeless and vulnerable they are placed into an Emergency Shelter where
work can be done to assist them to find permanent housing. In the current affordable housing climate, this
remains a very difficult task as there is not enough affordable housing to assist low wage earners with complex
needs for support. The demand for Emergency Shelter beds exceed the current supply. Samaritan House reports
there are currently 45 individuals who are currently waiting for a shelter bed, 18 of which identify being from
South San Francisco.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/21/2018Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1021 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
Samaritan House has requested that the City declare a Shelter Crisis, thereby opening the door for Samaritan
House to gain access (upon approval from the state and submission of an RFP to the County) to the allocated
$4.9 million dollars in HEAP funding the San Mateo County’s HSA will seek to attract. Specifically, in support
of its goal to right size the number of beds needed in the County and City, and to serve those waiting for an
emergency shelter bed, Safe Harbor will propose an expansion of its current facility’s mezzanine area to add up
to 15 shelter beds. Samaritan House also has identified capital project needs that include HVAC, plumbing, and
electric upgrades as preventative maintenance for the facility. To better serve senior citizens, they also propose
replacing it’s our current lift system with a full elevator
Samaritan House represents that none of the potential projects for Safe Harbor will expand beyond the exterior
of the existing structure or property, thus not impacting the area visibly. An exception may be an external fire
escape attached to the building. Any or all of these projects will be proposed for use of HEAP funding.
Thus far the cities of San Mateo and East Palo Alto have declared a Shelter Emergency.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council receive the report and provide direction.
Attachments:
1.San Mateo HSA Heap Memo to City Managers
2.2017 One Day Homeless Count
3.Draft Resolution Declaration of Shelter Crisis
4.Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/21/2018Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Date: October 29, 2018
To: City Managers of the County of San Mateo
From: Nicole Pollack, Agency Director, San Mateo County Human Services Agency
Subject: Information and Input request regarding Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP)
Funding
Background:
This memorandum is to provide background information to all cities, in the County of San Mateo, regarding the
Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). HEAP is a new, one‐time, state funding source to address homelessness.
HEAP funding is created through SB850. The Human Services Agency (HSA) serves as the Homeless Continuum of Care
(CoC) lead agency and is responsible for applying for HEAP funding for the County of San Mateo.
County Approach:
Given that HEAP is a one‐time funding source, HSA is strategically planning for how to most effectively utilize this
funding source within the existing homeless system. HSA is currently reaching out to stakeholders to share
information about HEAP and to obtain input. HSA is requesting that you or your staff complete a short online survey to
prioritize services that could be funded with HEAP funds by November 9, 2018. The survey can be access through the
link here or at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HEAPinput.
The results of the stakeholder engagement process will help inform funding priorities for HEAP funding, which may
include capital projects to make facility improvements at existing homeless shelters and also may include services such
as prevention, outreach, housing assistance and other services. Additional services will be further defined and
provided via a request for proposal (RFP) process.
Information on HEAP and HEAP Requirements Related to Shelter Crisis Declarations:
HEAP funding must be used to directly benefit individuals and families experiencing homelessness, unless the
activity is specifically a prevention or diversion activity
All activities must be in accordance with the County’s strategic plan to end homelessness and must comply
with the core components of Housing First (WIC § 8255(b))
The HEAP legislation includes some requirements related to local jurisdictions declaring a shelter crisis. If your
city is interested in applying for HEAP funding, a shelter crisis must be declared by the City Council no later
than December 28, 2018.
o For more information on the HEAP shelter crisis declarations, please see Attachment A: HEAP
Requirements Related to Shelter Crisis Declarations
Because it’s a requirement to receive HEAP funding, HSA is planning to request the Board of Supervisors to
declare a shelter crisis for the unincorporated County jurisdictions to ensure that funding is available to serve
County residents.
At least 5% of funding ($245,000) received must be spent on services for youth.
Funds not expended by June 30, 2021, revert to the State General Fund.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Please direct any questions you have about HEAP funding to:
Selina Toy Lee, Director of Collaborative Community Outcomes SToy‐[email protected] , 650‐802‐5120
Jessica Silverberg, Human Services Manager, [email protected], 650‐802‐3378.
Nicole Pollack
Agency Director
1 Davis Drive
Belmont, CA 94002
650-802-7500 T
650-631-5771 F
www.smchsa.org
Attachment A: HEAP Requirements Related to Shelter Crisis Declarations
This document provides information for cities regarding the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP)’s information
about shelter crisis declaration.
Declaration of Shelter Crisis for San Mateo County to meet HEAP requirements:
One of the HEAP requirements is that the Continuum of Care (CoC’s) jurisdiction must have declared a shelter crisis.
Shelter is only one of the components of an effective homeless system. Other critical services to reduce
homelessness include prevention services, rapid re‐housing programs, housing assistance, and other services. The
Human Services Agency (HSA) is requesting that the Board of Supervisors declare a shelter crisis for the
unincorporated County jurisdictions, to ensure that funding is available to serve County residents. The shelter crisis
declaration by the County would cover some, but not all HEAP activities in the county.
The shelter crisis declaration by the County’s Board of Supervisors would cover the following potential activities to
be eligible for HEAP funding:
Service‐based eligible activities throughout San Mateo County (such as outreach services, case
management, and other services that are not provided in a specific site‐based program/location)
Place‐based eligible activities (shelter facility projects or other capital projects, rental subsidies, or capital
projects) in the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County
Declarations of a Shelter Crisis for Cities (optional for additional HEAP funding eligibility):
Cities may choose to declare a shelter crisis in order to enable place‐based homeless programs in their city to apply
for HEAP funding for eligible projects/programs that serve individuals experiencing homelessness.
Any city who is planning to apply for HEAP funding to provide direct services must declare a shelter crisis and apply
as a sub‐recipient for HEAP funding during the RFP process for one or more of the eligible uses. Any place‐based
program (shelter facility projects or other capital projects, rental assistance, rental subsidies) applying for HEAP
funding (via the RFP that HSA will issue) must be located or utilized in a city that has declared a citywide shelter
crisis as of the date of the HEAP application submission, which will be in late December. Please note that a
declaration of shelter crisis does not guarantee cities or programs therein to receive funding through HEAP. HEAP
funding must still be awarded via the HEAP RFP process established by the CoC.
Cities providing service‐based services may choose to provide services across city lines. HEAP funding must be
located or utilized in a city that has declared a citywide shelter crisis as of the date of the HEAP application
submission in late December. A declaration of shelter crisis must be passed by the City Council no later than
December 28, 2018.
For reference, the current locations of shelters are as follows:
Family shelters: Burlingame, Daly City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, San Bruno
Adult and youth shelters: East Palo Alto, Redwood City, South San Francisco
A sample declaration of shelter crisis has been provided by the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing
Agency here and includes some language that must be included in the declaration in order for it to be considered a
declaration that meets the HEAP requirements.
Since the sample declaration includes a space for the jurisdiction to list the number of unsheltered homeless
individuals identified in the jurisdiction in the 2017 Point In Time Count (also known as the One Day Homeless
Count), you may refer to the 2017 One Day Count Executive Summary, page 4 (see the column titled “2017
COUNT”).
Any city considering declaring a shelter crisis is asked to inform HSA by December 7, 2018 of their plan to have
their council consider a declaration, and must pass the declaration by December 28, 2018.
HSA contacts for HEAP‐related questions or updates:
Selina Toy Lee, Director of Collaborative Community Outcomes, SToy‐[email protected] , 650‐802‐5120
Jessica Silverberg, Human Services Manager, [email protected], 650‐802‐3378
SAN MATEO COUNTY
ONE DAY HOMELESS COUNT
AND SURVEY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
May 2017
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y H U M A N S E R V I C E S A G E N C Y
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
ONE DAY HOMELESS COUNT AND SURVEY, MAY 2017 1
2017 SAN MATEO COUNTY ONE DAY
HOMELESS COUNT AND SURVEY
This executive summary provides an overview of key results from the 2017 San Mateo County One Day
Homeless Count and Survey (“count”). The San Mateo County Human Services Agency’s Center on
Homelessness coordinates the count in collaboration with community and County partners. The 2017 count
was conducted in the early morning hours of January 26, 2017. Approximately 350 volunteers consisting of
community-based providers, members of the public, and County staff, assisted by homeless guides, fanned out
by foot and car to conduct an observational count and surveys of homeless persons observed in each census
tract in the County. The County conducts the count every two years and the results provide one source of data,
among many others, to help the County and its partners assess how to best serve homeless households and
assist them with returning to housing as quickly as possible. The results are also submitted to the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which then compiles information about the
homeless counts nationwide.
NUMBER OF HOMELESS PEOPLE
The 2017 count determined that there were 1,253 homeless people in San Mateo County on the night of
January 25, 2017 comprised of:
• 637 unsheltered homeless people (living on streets, in cars, in RVs, in tents/encampments) and,
• 616 sheltered homeless people (in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs).
The 2017 results show a 16% decrease in the overall homeless count compared to 2015, with the biggest
decreases made in reduced numbers of people living on the streets and in encampments.
The table below provides information on the number of homeless people, including both sheltered and
unsheltered people, from the counts from 2009 to 2017.
Homeless Count Over Time
There was an 18% decrease in the number of unsheltered people in 2017 compared to 2015. The decrease
was accounted for by fewer people being counted on the street (a 62% decrease) and tents (a 30% decrease),
although there was an increase in the number of people counted in RVs (a 44% increase) and in the number of
people in cars (a 25% increase).
1,547
2009
744
803
1,861
2011
699
1,162
2,002
2013
703
1,299
1,483
2015
708
775
1,253
2017
616
637
• Unsheltered
• Sheltered
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y H U M A N S E R V I C E S A G E N C Y
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
ONE DAY HOMELESS COUNT AND SURVEY, MAY 2017 2
The unsheltered count also included information about the locations where unsheltered people slept on the
previous night: on the street, in cars, in RVs, or in tents/encampments.
The sheltered count also decreased in comparison to 2015, with a 13% reduction in the number of sheltered
homeless people. The total number of sheltered people went down from 708 in 2015 to 616 in 2017, with
decreases shown in both the number of people in emergency shelter (a 17% decrease) and transitional housing
(an 11% decrease).
A major change that impacted the count of people in emergency shelter from 2015 to 2017 was the removal of
the Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program -Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans
(VADOM Program), which is a program of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). HUD issued
instructions to no longer include the VADOM in the emergency shelter count after 2015. Another major impact
to the reduction in the emergency shelter count was a lower number of persons in the M otel Voucher Program.
The reduction of persons in transitional housing is due to the reclassification of the Health Care for Homeless
Veterans (HCHV) beds. In 2015, HCHV beds were classified as transitional housing beds but in 2017 the
HCHV beds were classified as emergency shelter beds in order to align with the VA and HUD classification.
Therefore, these beds shifted from being counted as transitional housing beds to emergency shelter beds.
NUMBER OF HOMELESS PEOPLE IN INSTITUTIONS
The count also collected data in a variety of institutions on the night of January 25, 2017, including hospitals,
the County correctional facility, and inpatient alcohol and drug treatment programs, to determine the number of
people who were homeless upon entry. The data showed that the number of people who were homeless upon
entry to the institution was 298, up by 3.1% from the 289 reported in 2015.
In previous counts in San Mateo County, the institutions count was included in the sheltered count. Starting with
this 2017 count report, data from institutions has now been removed from the sheltered count and is being
reported separately. In order to provide trend data over time, the institutions count has been removed from the
sheltered count in all data in this report, including data from previous years.
20%
31%34%
15%
Locations of Unsheltered Persons in 2017 Count
n=637
People in RVs
(218)People in cars
(197)
People in tents/encampments
(95)People on streets
(127)
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y H U M A N S E R V I C E S A G E N C Y
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
ONE DAY HOMELESS COUNT AND SURVEY, MAY 2017 3
While data collected via the institutions count is used for local planning, it is not included in the data submitted
to HUD, therefore this change aligns the data in this report with the data submitted to HUD.
NUMBER OF HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS
The 1,253 homeless people (including both sheltered and unsheltered) counted comprised 902 households.
Overall, the number of homeless households decreased by 35%, with a substantial decrease in adult only
households, as well as a decrease in family households.
The number of homeless unsheltered families decreased by 48%, from 35 families in 2015 to 19 families in
2017.
COMPARISON OVER TIME OF HOMELESS PERSONS
The table below provides information about the count since 2009. The trend shows that the total number of
people is at its lowest count since 2009. After 2009, there were increases in 2011 and 2013, but a steady
decrease from 2013 through 2017.
LOCATION
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
NET CHANGE
(2015 TO
2017)
% CHANGE
(2015 TO
2017)
Unsheltered Count
People on streets 422 466 353 331 127 -204 -62%
People in cars 96 126 231 157 197 40 25%
People in RVs 170 246 392 151 218 67 44%
People in
tents/encampments 115 324 323 136 95 -41 -30%
Subtotal
Unsheltered Count 803 1,162 1,299 775 637 -138 -18%
Sheltered Count
People in
Emergency Shelters 341 258 272 254 211 -43 -17%
People in
Transitional Housing 403 441 431 454 405 -49 -11%
Subtotal
Sheltered Count* 744 699 703 708 616 -92 -13%
Total Homeless People 1,547 1,861 2,002 1,483 1,253 -230 -16%
*does not include institutions count
Although the sheltered count has varied over time (including shifts due to HUD’s definitional changes), it is the
unsheltered count that has largely contributed to the overall decline in the total number of homeless people in
San Mateo County. Specifically, in the 2017 count, the number was 637, 51% less than its highest of 1,299 in
2013.
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y H U M A N S E R V I C E S A G E N C Y
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
ONE DAY HOMELESS COUNT AND SURVEY, MAY 2017 4
GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN
2017 Distribution of Unsheltered Homeless People by City
The following chart summarizes the geographic distribution of the unsheltered homeless people who were
counted in 2017 and the change from previous counts. There were several cities with fewer people counted and
an almost equal number where the homeless population increased.
CITY
2009
COUNT
2011
COUNT
2013
COUNT
2015
COUNT
2017
COUNT
NET
CHANGE
(2015-2017)
% CHANGE
(2015-2017)
Airport 4 9 5 1 3 2 200%
Atherton 0 1 0 1 0 -1 -100%
Belmont 5 1 43 11 3 -8 -73%
Brisbane 1 0 34 21 19 -2 -10%
Burlingame 8 3 13 7 21 14 200%
Colma 0 1 7 3 1 -2 -67%
Daly City 49 44 27 32 17 -15 -47%
East Palo Alto 204 385 119 95 98 3 3%
Foster City 0 0 7 0 6 6 NA
Half Moon Bay 19 41 114 84 43 -41 -49%
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Menlo Park 25 72 16 27 47 20 74%
Millbrae 1 1 21 8 7 -1 -13%
Pacifica 16 95 150 63 112 49 78%
Portola Valley 3 16 2 0 1 1 NA
Redwood City 220 233 307 223 94 -129 -58%
San Bruno 34 14 99 8 26 18 225%
San Carlos 11 9 10 20 28 8 40%
San Mateo 99 68 103 82 48 -34 -41%
South San Francisco 7 122 172 55 33 -22 -40%
Unincorporated 95 47 46 32 30 -2 -6%
Coastside 22 22 0
Central 0 0 0
North 0 3 3
South 10 5 -5
Woodside 2 0 7 2 0 -2 -100%
Total 803 1,162 1,299 775 637 -138 -18%
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y H U M A N S E R V I C E S A G E N C Y
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
ONE DAY HOMELESS COUNT AND SURVEY, MAY 2017 5
CONCLUSION
The number of homeless persons decreased from the 2015 count to the 2017 count , including a significant
decrease in the number of unsheltered people. The County and its partner agencies will continue to implement
strategies identified in the strategic plan to address homelessness, using data from the count and many other
data sources to help guide implementation. The County’s Strategic Plan to End Homelessness can be found
through the link at the bottom of the page here: http://hsa.smcgov.org/center-homelessness.
Published by the County of San Mateo Human Services Agency.
Data analysis by Focus Strategies.
..Title
Resolution approving a declaration of shelter crisis pursuant to California Homeless Emergency
Aid Program as part of SB 850 and the 2018-2019 Budget Act (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and
Government Code § 8698.2).
..body
WHEREAS, California’s Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and the members of the California
Legislature have recognized the urgent and immediate need for funding at the local level to
combat homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and Legislature have provided funding to local governments under
the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (“HEAP”) as part of SB 850 and the 2018-2019 Budget
Act (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code § 8698.2); and
WHEREAS, the Governor and Legislature require jurisdictions seeking an allocation through the
Homeless Emergency Aid Program to declare a Shelter Crisis, pursuant to Government Code §
8698.2; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) has developed a homeless plan and
undertaken multiple efforts at the local level to combat homelessness, including supporting
efforts of the Samaritan House; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt a declaration of a shelter crisis in order for the Samaritan
House to be eligible to receive funds from the San Mateo County Human Services Agency,
which serves as the City’s Continuum of Care; and
WHEREAS; according to the 2017 homeless Point in Time (PIT) count, also known as the One
Day Homeless Count, the City finds that 33 persons within the City of South San Francisco are
living without shelter and 1,253 persons within the County of San Mateo are living without
shelter; and
WHEREAS, the Samaritan House currently serves approximately 566 individuals with 265
individuals identified as being from South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, the Samaritan House operates a Safe Harbor Shelter, which is a 90 bed facility, and
seeks to add up to 15 shelter beds because the demand for emergency shelter beds exceeds the
current supply; and
WHEREAS, 45 individuals are currently on a waiting list for a shelter bed at the Samaritan
House, and 18 of those individuals have identified as being from South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, the Samaritan House has seen a 16% increase in the number of displaced seniors
from 2017 to 2018, and seeks to replace its elevator to serve those with physical impairments;
and
WHEREAS; the City finds that the number of homeless is significant and these persons are
without the ability to obtain shelter; and
WHEREAS; the City finds that the health and safety of unsheltered persons in the City of South
San Francisco is threatened by lack of shelter; and
WHEREAS, the City is making a declaration of a shelter crisis limited to the location of the
Samaritan House pursuant to Government Code Section 8698.2(a)(2); and
WHEREAS, the City’s local standards of housing, health, or safety shall remain in effect
notwithstanding Government Code Section 8698.1(b); and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to combatting homelessness and augmenting a continuum of
shelter and service options for those living without shelter in our communities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, CALIFORNIA, that a shelter crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2 exists in
South San Francisco for the sole purpose of enabling qualified entities within South San
Francisco to receive Homeless Emergency Aid Program funding and authorizes the City of
South San Francisco’s participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program.
*****
November 28, 2018
} SB 850 (2018)
◦ Authorized state Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) to release $500 million in block grant funding for HEAP
} $4.9 million available
◦ San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HAS)
◦ Continuum of Care (CoC) for South San Francisco
} Funding based on homeless population
◦ City’s 2017 count: 33 persons
◦ County’s 2017 count: 1,253 persons
◦ HUD requires minimum 1,000 homeless persons per CoC
} Funding available for
1. Place-based programs
2. Shelter facilities
3. Capital projects
4. Rental assistance
5. Rental subsidies
Requirements:
◦ City must have declared a citywide shelter crisis by
Dec. 28, 2018 in order to receive HEAP funding
} Implications of passing a shelter crisis declaration
1. A city is immune from liability for ordinary negligence that may arise in providing emergency housing.
2. For additional public facilities opened pursuant to the crisis, state and local regulations regarding housing, health, or safety are suspended.
3. During crisis, a city may allow persons to occupy designated public facilities (i.e. parks, schools, vacant/underutilized facilities owned, operated, leased, or maintained by a city).
} If adopted, limit declaration to the location of the Samaritan House. (Gov. Code § 8698.2(a)(2)
} Strategic goal: right size the number of beds needed in San Mateo county based on data captured from coordinated entry system
} 2017 One day homeless count: 33 identified unsheltered
} 2018: *566 unduplicated individuals served *265 (47%) from South san Francisco *on average 2 individuals per month enter safe harbor shelter from Sfo *increase of 16% in seniors over the age of 55 On average 45 single individuals (18 from SSF) on waiting list for emergency shelter each night for the last year
Samaritan House Goals for Funding:
Preventative maintenance on existing facility including: Install hvac system Improve failing plumbing systems Upgrade electrical to allow for commercial laundry area
Increase capacity to serve those in need by: Expanding the current facility and extend the mezzanine to allow for up to 15 more shelter beds Noteworthy: safe harbor is first to have medical respite beds in San Mateo County to support those needing home health care who have no home…
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-977 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
Study Session regarding the preferred alternative for the OMP Stormwater Capture Project (No.sd1801),and
authorizing staff to prepare plans,specifications and estimates (PS&E).(Justin Lovell,Public Works
Administrator)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a study session and approve the preferred alternative
for the OMP Stormwater Capture Project (No.sd1801),and authorize staff to prepare plans,
specifications and estimates (PS&E).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City Council of South San Francisco approved a Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA)with the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)in fiscal year (FY)2016-17.Under this agreement,Caltrans
would provide the City $9.5 million for the design,permitting and construction of the Orange Memorial Park
Stormwater Capture project (Project).The Project,at a minimum,must remove trash and pollutants of concern
from storm water run-off from an area equivalent to Caltrans’right-of-way within the Colma Creek watershed
(approximately 23 acres).Subsequently,City Council allocated funds for the initial study,permits and design of
Orange Memorial Park Stormwater Capture Project in FY 2017-18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).The
City Council,at its regular meeting on January 24,2018,approved the selection of Lotus Water of San
Francisco,California for the engineering and environmental studies,design,permitting and construction bid
document preparation services for the Project.
The Project will help the City comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB)Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP)which stipulates a regulatory requirement for 100%trash reduction by July 1,2022 and
certain minimum mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)load reductions in waters flowing to the San
Francisco Bay.A portion of these load reductions must utilize green infrastructure such as filtration,infiltration,
capture for re-use and trans-evaporation.The Project was initially proposed as a regional project in the San
Mateo Countywide Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP).
Project Elements
Project components may include the following:
·Capacity for capturing initial storm run-off (approximately six acre-ft.).Initial run-off (first flush)
washes away accumulated pollutants and hence is the most polluted.
·Screens and stilling basins for removing solids exceeding 45 microns.
·PCB,mercury and other pollutant load reduction by bio-treatment,filtration or storm water capture for
non-potable uses.
·Mechanism for collection and disposal of solids removed from storm water flows passing through the
Project site.
·Pumping system for flow diversion and re-use for park irrigation, sewer flushing or other uses.
The Project being considered would generally filter out grit and solids from the creek’s dry-weather and first
flush of wet-weather flows before passing through bio-treatment basins.These processes will remove most
contaminants of concerns listed in the Municipal Regional Permit to the City.Treated water may be allowed to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/20/2018Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-977 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
contaminants of concerns listed in the Municipal Regional Permit to the City.Treated water may be allowed to
flow to San Francisco Bay or a portion of it may be used for ground infiltration,park and trail irrigation or
another non-potable use.
Project Site Analysis
Lotus Water considered the potential stormwater capture project the SWRP proposed at previously owned
Mazzanti property near Orange Memorial Park along north and south sides of Colma Creek.Additionally,the
ball fields fronting West Orange Avenue were also considered for the project.As part of the site analysis,Lotus
Water conducted:
·A topographical survey of the aforementioned sites,
·A geotechnical study with borings extending to 45 feet below ground surface, and
·Reviewed a previously completed agricultural pollutants study.
The findings of the project site studies are summarized as follows:
The north and south lots:
a)The top two to three feet of soil is clean fill placed over soil contaminated with agricultural pesticides
and chemicals.
b)The contaminated soil depth is approximately three feet.Disposal of spoils excavated from this area
would need special consideration.
c)Soil below the clean fill is a part of the poorly graded loose to medium dense sand,silty sand and gravel
extending to a depth of approximately 15.5 to 19 feet below ground surface.This soil layer could liquefy
during a significant earthquake and hence,may not be suitable for supporting a heavy structure such as a
concrete storm water storage facility.
d)A four to five foot thick stiff clay layer was encountered at a depth of approximately 20 feet which
would limit infiltration potential.
The ballfields:
a)The top four and a half to five feet thick medium stiff to stiff clay fill overlaying loose medium dense to
dense alluvial sands and silty or clayey sands.
b)Stiff clay layer,four to five feet thick,was found at an approximate depth of 23 feet limiting potential
ground infiltration.
c)Ground water in March 2018 was at depths of approximately 25 feet.
Project Alternatives
Lotus Water has evaluated three different general concepts as follows:
1)Instream Diversion, Treatment, and Release (Attachment 1)
2)Infiltration Chamber on the north lot (Attachment 2)
3)Water Reuse System under Existing Ballfields (Attachment 3)
Based on site constraints and the thick clay layer found in the soil,Lotus Water determined that an underground
storage facility at the south lot would not be as deep as originally anticipated and would not provide water
treatment capacity required by the CIA.
Alternative 1: Instream Diversion & Release
This concept aims to consolidate improvements in a closed flow-through system located within the existing
channel,taking into account available geotechnical and hydrologic information.Treatment is provided in two
steps:1)above-grade gross solids removal devices (GSRDs)installed within the channel;and 2)a drop inlet
diversion to direct a prescribed flow rate into an inline baffled stilling chamber constructed under the channel
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/20/2018Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-977 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
diversion to direct a prescribed flow rate into an inline baffled stilling chamber constructed under the channel
bed to remove sediment,oil,and grease.Due to the high water table,the system is closed and infiltration is not
feasible; treated flows are instead discharged back into the channel.
This system requires certain hydraulic head to drive flows through the treatment train.A sudden 3.5 foot drop in
the channel grade approximately 500 feet downstream from the upstream project boundary is utilized to create
the needed head.
If it proves easier to construct and maintain the stilling and filtration chambers offline,within the park parcel,
then a variation of this alternative would be to divert flows into the adjacent former greenhouse parcel and
construct the subsurface chambers there along a corridor running parallel to the channel.
Alternative 2: Infiltration Chamber on Former Greenhouse Parcel
This concept carries forward the main components proposed in the SWRP,with some modifications to account
for site conditions.Flows would be diverted via an inflatable rubber dam and drop-inlet diversion with a pump
station.Pumped flows are routed through a hydrodynamic separator for trash and sediment removal and then to
a large infiltration chamber under the northern former greenhouse parcel.Ground water at 15 feet below ground
surface and a thick clay layer just beneath that makes infeasible the deep infiltration facility envisioned in the
SWRP.This modified version of the SWRP project concept includes a shallower facility with its base 5 ft.
below existing ground surface and a much larger footprint to maintain the 6 acre-feet of storage shown in the
SWRP.The larger footprint will increase the contact area,thus increasing the infiltrative capacity of the system
and regenerating capacity between storms more quickly.
As an additional treatment measure to regenerate storage capacity between storms,treated water will be
metered through a filtration chamber to remove particles down to ten microns before discharging back to the
stream through a low-stage orifice at a prescribed flow rate.Following installation of the subsurface chamber,
final surface elevations will be set to support future construction of the children’s playing fields as envisioned
in the park’s Master Plan.
A potential addition to this concept would be to maintain a permanent subsurface reservoir of treated water to
feed a new truck filling station in the parking lot at the entrance to this parcel.
Alternative 3: Diversion to Existing Ballfields for Treatment and Reuse
This concept diverts Colma Creek flows to the softball fields in the southeast corner of the park for treatment
and reuse to satisfy local irrigation demands.Flows are diverted into a drop inlet feeding laterally into a grit
chamber to settle out gross solids at the intake to a gravity-fed diversion pipe running parallel to the channel.
An instream inflatable rubber dam will be necessary to drive flows through the system.A pipe runs downstream
out of the diversion structure until it reaches the pretreatment baffle box just west of the ballfields.Depending
on the depth of the storage system under the baseball/softball fields,a booster pump may also be needed to help
convey diverted flows to the storage area.After course sediment and floatables are removed,the baffle box
discharges into a large storage reservoir underneath the ballfields.A portion of the storage will be a cistern
dedicated to reuse for irrigation,and a portion will be an infiltration gallery to recharge groundwater.If the new
ballfields utilize the EPIC system for an high efficiency subsurface irrigation system,then no additional
treatment is required and treated water will be pumped up for irrigation of the ballfields on an as-needed basis.
If a surface irrigation option is selected, then additional filtration and disinfection would need to be provided.
As an additional treatment measure to regenerate storage capacity between storms in the tanks under the field,
treated water will be metered through a filtration chamber to remove particles down to ten microns before
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/20/2018Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-977 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
treated water will be metered through a filtration chamber to remove particles down to ten microns before
discharging back to the stream through a low-stage orifice at a prescribed flow rate.
Additional funding may be needed for this concept depending on the full trash capture capability,full storage
capacity, type of turf, irrigation system, etc.
Public Outreach
Project concepts were refined with public input received at the following:
·July 24, 2018 - meeting of the Environmental Standing Committee of the City Council
·September 10, 2018 - community meeting
·September 11, 2018 - meeting of the Colma Creek Flood Control District Advisory Committee
·September 18, 2018 - meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission
Comments received at the September meetings generally favored a project at the existing ballfields generally
based on Alternative 3.
Analysis
Alternative 1, estimated construction cost $7.4 million
Alternative 1 is the simplest,which is advantageous in terms of passive operations that do not require any
pumping or electronics.This alternative is contained within the walls of the channel,although a short length of
the channel by the old Mazzanti property will have to be widened from its existing 35-foot width to
approximately 50 feet.Impacts to the park are limited to that minor encroachment around the GSRDs and
minor visual impacts from the pedestrians crossing the downstream bridge.There is no flood reduction,
groundwater recharge,water reuse,or park improvements.Water reuse could potentially be added to this
scenario for an additional cost,pumping water from the outlet of the settling chamber up to a polishing and
disinfection facility housed in a 15 ft x 20-ft equipment structure.
Alternative 2, estimated construction cost $11.4 million
Alternative 2 is not feasible.The geotechnical investigation discovered sandier soils on the north Mazzanti
parcel,as compared to the south parcel where the initial project feasibility investigation was completed in 2016.
The sandier soils increased the susceptibly to liquefaction and differential settling from seismic events.The site
is two miles from the San Andreas Fault.The recommended mitigation measures had an estimated cost of $4
million.Additionally,the Parks &Recreation Department expressed concerns about the future programming
constraints that would result from the underground chamber at this yet-undeveloped site,and CalWater
expressed concerns about the potential introduction of new contaminants into the underlying aquifer that serves
as their drinking water supply. Thus, this alternative was deemed infeasible.
Alternative 3, estimated construction cost $7.4 million
Alternative 3 has the greatest potential to provide a wide range of benefits in addition to improved water
quality.A portion of the subsurface storage will be purposed as a cistern,sized to meet the irrigation demand.
The remaining portion of the storage will be purposed as an infiltration facility.Based on budget constraints
with Caltrans funding,staff is unable to realize the full potential of this alternative,which would be to expand
the size of the project to cover the full ballfield footprint.Another benefit of this alternative if the City can
secure additional funding would be to lower the field several feet to provide flood control benefits.The baseline
version of this alternative provides significant water quality benefits and water reuse for irrigation,but it
includes neither full trash capture nor significant flood reduction benefits.
Based on the criteria developed as part of the project and evaluation of the alternatives,Alternative 3 had the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/20/2018Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-977 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
Based on the criteria developed as part of the project and evaluation of the alternatives,Alternative 3 had the
best water treatment and reuse benefits which worked within the budget compared to other project alternatives
(attachment 4). Staff is recommending pursuing full design and construction of Alternative 3.
Ballfield Replacement
An existing Capital Improvement Project,the Orange Memorial Park Sports Field Renovation (CIP Project
No.pk1402),is slated to replace the baseball and softball fields at the recommended location of the stormwater
capture facility.Currently,the sports field renovation is in the planning phase.Funding for pk1402 will come
from two funding sources.The first funding source is this stormwater capture project which will provide
funding equal to the value of an in-kind replacement of the ballfields which will be impacted by the
construction of the drainage field.The second source is developer impact fees dedicated to park improvements.
Staff anticipates that funding from developer impact fees will be available to fully fund the sports field
replacement within three to four years.Staff is coordinating the stormwater capture and the sports field
renovation project to ensure that that the fields are closed once and reopened with both projects complete.
Currently,staff is developing a community planning process for the ballfield improvements.It’s anticipated that
this planning process will occur in the first six months of 2019.The planning for the ballfield replacement will
include discussions and outreach to reach a consensus regarding replacing the ballfield with artificial turf.
Stormwater Capture Project and Ballfield Replacement Schedule
·December 2018 - June 2019
o April 2018 - Begin planning and outreach for ballfield replacement
o June 2018 - Complete construction drawings for OMP Stormwater Capture Project
·July-December 2019
o July 2018 - Award construction contract for Stormwater Capture Project
o August 2019 - Start construction of Stormwater Capture Project
o October 2019 -Complete planning and begin design/construction drawings for ballfield
replacement.
·January-December 2020
o June 2020 - Complete design and go to bid for ballfield replacement
o July 2020 - Award construction contract for phase 1 of ballfield replacement
o August 2020 - Complete construction for Stormwater Capture Project
o September 2020 - Start construction of phase 1 of ballfield replacement
FISCAL IMPACT
The CIA with Caltrans does not allow for additional funding beyond the $9.5 million already secured for the
Project.Staff estimates there is approximately $8 -$8.5 million available for construction,construction
management,and contingency.The funding does cover in-kind replacement costs for grading,irrigation,and
turf of the site.Any additional funding for other site improvements such as ballfield renovations will come from
other funding sources that will secured during the planning phase of the ballfield replacement.There are
sufficient funds at the current cost estimates to cover the construction cost of Alternative 3 as presented.
CONCLUSION
The Environmental Subcommitee and staff recommend that the City Council approve the preferred alternative
for OMP Stormwater Capture Project and authorize staff to complete the plans, estimates, and specifications.
Attachments:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/20/2018Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-977 Agenda Date:11/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
1.Alternative 1: Instream Diversion & Release
2.Alternative 2: Infiltration Chamber on Former Greenhouse Parcel
3.Alternative 3: Diversion to Existing Ballfields for Treatment and Reuse
4.Alternative Evaluation Matrix
5.PowerPoint Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/20/2018Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Project Alternative #1: Instream Alternative in plan view and schematic
Project Alternative #2: Infiltration Alternative in plan view and schematic
Project Alternative #3: Water Reuse Alternative in plan view and schematic
660 Mission Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 800-6805 www.lotuswater.com Project Concept Alternatives Evaluation Matrix
11/19/2018
1
Orange Memorial Park
Storm Water Capture Project
City Council Presentation
November 28, 2018
Project Overview
11/19/2018
2
GOALS
DIVERT flows from Colma Creek
for treatment, beneficial reuse,
and local flood reduction
CLEAN contaminants from creek
per MRP requirements using green
infrastructure (infiltration, reuse,
biofiltration)
Mercury
PCB’s
Trash
REUSE treated water for irrigation,
water trucks, and/or groundwater
recharge of Westside Basin
6,300 acres in 4 jurisdictions
Colma Creek diversions into Orange
Memorial Park
Alternative 1
Instream Treatment & Return
Alternative 2
Infiltration Chamber on Former
Greenhouse Parcel
(SWRP Concept)
Alternative 3
Water Reuse System
with new Ballfields
Alternative 3
Water Reuse System
with new Ballfields
Overview of Alternatives
11/19/2018
3
COLMA CREEK
TRASH REMOVAL
DEVICE
GABION WALL
MAINTENANCE
ACCESSDROP INLET
TOP OF CHANNEL
DROP INLET INTO
GRIT CHAMBER
WIDENED
CHANNEL
INLINE SETTLING BASIN
& STORAGE
GRIT
CHAMBER
OUTLET STRUCTURE /
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
INLINE SETTLING BASIN & STORAGE (600’)
TRASH REMOVAL
DEVICE
GABION WALL
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
OUTLET STRUCTURE /
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
Alternative 1: Instream Treatment & Return
Alternative 1: Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD)
11/19/2018
4
COLMA
CREEK
PRETREATMENT
STRUCTURE WET WELL /
PUMP STATION
INFILTRATION
CHAMBERS
FILTER
CARTRIDGES
OVERFLOW
WEIR &
ORIFICE
OUTLET PIPE BACK
TO COLMA CREEK
DROP INLET
INFLATABLE DAM
/ DIVERSION
COLMA
CREEK
INFILTRATION
CHAMBERS
INFLATABLE DAM
/ DIVERSION
DROP
INLET
PRETREATMENT
STRUCTURE
WET WELL /
PUMP STATION FILTRATION
CHAMBER
OUTLET PIPE BACK TO
COLMA CREEK
Alternative 2: Infiltration Chamber
Alternative 2: Infiltration Chamber
11/19/2018
5
COLMA
CREEK
PRETREATMENT
STRUCTURE IRRIGATION
PUMP
STORAGE
CHAMBERS
DROP INLET
INFLATABLE DAM
/ DIVERSION
CISTERN
INFLATABLE DAM
/ DIVERSIONDROP
INLET
PRETREATMENT
STRUCTURE
IRRIGATION
PUMPFILTRATION
CHAMBER
OVERFLOW PIPE
BACK TO COLMA
CREEK
Alternative 3: Water Reuse System
OVERFLOW PIPE BACK
TO COLMA CREEK
OVERFLOW
WEIRFILTER
CARTRIDGES
Alternative 3: Subsurface Cistern under Ballfields
11/19/2018
6
Comparison of Alternatives
Instream Alternative (#1) In-park Alternatives (#2 and #3)
Total
Annual
Runoff
100% Trash Removal
8% Filtered 92% Bypass
100% Flows Reach the Bay
Total
Annual
Runoff
13% Removed 87% Bypass
87% Flows Reach the Bay
Alternative Analysis
Process
11/19/2018
7
BUILDING SUPPORT
OUTREACH PLAN
•Outreach Plan
•Staff Meetings
•Steering Committee Meetings
•Stakeholder Interviews
•Community Meetings
•Commission Presentation
•Colma Crk Advisory Committee meetings
•Environmental Subcommittee Meetings
•Council Presentation
•Stakeholder Values
•Maintain dialogue
•Evaluate potential impacts
•Identify opportunities
•Ensure improvements support
stakeholder values
BUILDING SUPPORT
OUTREACH PROCESS
Outreach
Plan
Preliminary
Concepts
Steering
Committee
#1
Colma Crk
Advisory
Committee
Community
Open
House
Steering
Committee
#2
Environmental
Subcommittee
#2
Commission
Meeting
City
Council
Approval
30% Design
Submittal
1.
2.
3.
Environmental
Subcommittee
#1
Parks & Rec
Commission
Meeting
Preferred
Concept
Construction Documents
Ongoing Public Outreach
11/19/2018
8
Steering Committee Feedback
Ranked Priority Voting
59
51 49 49 48
27
24 22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
BURDEN
IMPACTS ON PARK/
NEIGHBORHOOD
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS
PARK
IMPROVEMENT
POTENTIAL
FLOOD REDUCTION
POTENTIAL
RE‐PURPOSE
CLEAN WATER
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE
POTENTIAL
POTENTIAL CEQA/
PERMITTING ISSUES
WEIGHTED PRIORITY SCORING
Community Feedback
Ranked Priority Voting
79
69
65
52 50
46 44
33
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS
RE‐PURPOSE
CLEAN WATER
FLOOD
REDUCTION
POTENTIAL
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE
POTENTIAL
PARK
IMPROVEMENT
POTENTIAL
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
BURDEN
LONG‐TERM
IMPACTS TO PARK
CONSTRUCTION
COST
SHORT‐TERM
IMPACTS
WEIGHTED PRIORITY SCORING
11/19/2018
9
TOP PRIORITIES
1. Water Quality Improvements
2. Flood Reduction Potential
3. Operations & Maintenance Burden
4. Park Improvement Potential
5. Impacts to Park/Neighborhood
6. Re-purpose Clean Water
Community Feedback
Which Option Did You Most Prefer?
3 votes
12 votes
11/19/2018
10
Comparison of Alternatives
Recommended Alternative
11/19/2018
11
Subsurface Cistern under
the Softball/Baseball Fields
Recommended Alternative:
Alternative 3: Subsurface Cistern under Ballfields
11/19/2018
12
Alternative 3: Subsurface Cistern under Ballfields
2019
• Design, Bid,
Stormwater
Capture
• Planning
ballfield
replacement
2020
• Complete
Construction
Stormwater
Capture
•Begin
construction of
ballfield
replacement
2021
• Complete
construction
phase 1 of new
ballfield