HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-25 e-packet@6:00Tuesday, May 25, 2021
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
May 25, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-29-20 AND N-63-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION
OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS
THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY
BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City
staff will participate via Teleconference.
PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES
SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY
TELECONFERENCE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY:
Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/84302509360
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,84302509360# or +12532158782,,84302509360#
Join by Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 843 0250 9360
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2021
May 25, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa
Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected].
Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and
preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the
Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
HOW TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE MEETING
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the
eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by
visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application
used by City Council and staff.
Comments received by the deadline will be read into the record by the City Clerk or designee. Comments
received after the deadline will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the
meeting. Approximately 300 words total can be read in three minutes.
Comments on agenda items will be taken when that item is called. If joining the conference by phone you may
raise your hand by dialing *9 and *6 to unmute.
State law prevents Council from responding to public comments or taking action on matters not on the agenda .
The Council may refer comments to staff for follow -up. Speakers are limited to three minutes. If there appears
to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for
public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the City
Council's rules of decorum will be muted.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2021
May 25, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE MEETING
Members of the public who wish to provide comment during the meeting may do so by using the “Raise Hand”
feature:
• To raise your hand on a PC or Mac desktop/laptop, click the button labeled "Raise Hand” at the bottom of
the window on the right side of the screen. Lower your hand by clicking the same button, now labeled “Lower
Hand.”
• To raise your hand on a mobile device, tap “Raise Hand” at the bottom left corner of the screen. The hand
icon will turn blue, and the text below it will switch to say "Lower Hand" while your hand is raised. To lower
your hand, click on “Lower Hand.”
• To raise your hand when participating by telephone, press *9.
• To toggle mute/unmute, press *6.
Once your hand is raised, please wait to be acknowledged by the City Clerk, or designee, who will call on
speakers. When called upon, speakers will be unmuted. After the allotted time, speakers will be placed on
mute.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report regarding Sea Level Rise at Oyster Point and Expansion of Commuter Ferry
Service. (Philip Vitale, Deputy Capital Projects Manager)
1.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-195 Agenda Date:5/25/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding Sea Level Rise at Oyster Point and Expansion of Commuter Ferry Service.(Philip Vitale,
Deputy Capital Projects Manager)
Attachments:
1.Staff Report
2.Site and Architecture Package
3.Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/21/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
DATE: May 25, 2021
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Philip Vitale, Deputy Capital Projects Manager
Report regarding Sea Level Rise at Oyster Point and Expansion of Commuter Ferry Service
(Philip Vitale, Deputy Capital Projects Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on efforts to address sea level rise
at the Spit at Oyster Point and expand commuter ferry service and provide feedback to City
Staff.
I. Introduction
City Staff are engaged in a three-pronged feasibility study examining (1) how best to address Sea
Level Rise at the Spit at Oyster Point; (2) possible construction of a ferry terminal building at the
Spit; and (3) possible expansion of commuter ferry service to Oyster Point, utilizing the Spit area.
This entailed examining engineering approaches to address flooding and seawater inundation of
the capped landfill at the Spit, while exploring options to build off the shoring improvement to
expand water transportation services and create indoor and outdoor programmable spaces to serve
residents, commuters, boaters, users of the Bay Trail and the general public.
The following sections describe the recommended engineering approach to fortify the Spit,
potential ferry building designs, North-South transportation routes, ridership potential, and space
programming opportunities.
II. Project Description
Located East of 101 in the area known as Oyster Point, the Spit is owned by the City of South San
Francisco and includes Harbor Master Road, the Harbor Master’s Office and provides access to
the Guest Dock and Dock Seven. The Spit itself is adjacent to the Kilroy Oyster Point
Development which is currently under construction.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 2 of 14
Figure A: Location Map
Site Background:
The Oyster Point Landfill is a closed, unlined Class III landfill regulated by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region under Title 27 of the
California Code of Regulations. The landfill operated between 1956 and 1970 and was primarily
used for the disposal of solid wastes. Prior to 1956, the existing Oyster Point Landfill area consisted
of tidal marshlands and upland bedrock and soils. Waste disposal operations resulted in the
extension of the shoreline approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the pre-landfill shoreline.
Consistent with landfill practices at that time, no liner was installed at the site. Instead, the waste
materials were placed directly onto the Younger Bay Mud and soils overlying bedrock.
Between 1956 and 1970, the City leased the site to the now defunct landfill operator The South
San Francisco Scavenger Company (Scavenger). Between 1970 and 1977, the City conducted
maintenance activities at the closed landfill. The City operated a marina constructed in 1962
adjacent to a portion of the former landfill. Since 1977, the San Mateo County Harbor District
(Harbor District) has operated the municipal marina and a park at the landfill and manages property
leases for other facilities under an Operating Agreement with the City. The marina was expanded
in 1978.
After landfill operations ceased in 1970, the City and Scavenger conducted various site closure
activities. Between 1971 and 1976, the upper surface of the landfill was compacted, and a 2-foot
layer of low-permeability soil was placed on top of the compacted fill. Additional remedial
measures were constructed between 1979 and 1981, including installation of a 2- to 3-foot thick
Bay Mud cap across the site, placement of additional riprap and Bay Mud along the Marina,
construction of bentonite-cement trenches between the landfill and the drainage channel and along
an approximately 300-foot length of shoreline on the west basin (beach area), and realignment of
the drainage channel. In addition, Bay Mud was placed along the southern boundary of the landfill
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 3 of 14
where leachate seepage had been observed. In 1987, a Bay Mud leachate cutoff trench was
constructed along the northern landfill boundary, between the mole and beach area. A gas barrier
trench consisting of compacted soil (85%) and chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) liner (20 mils thick)
was also installed along the western landfill boundary. On June 21, 2000, the RWQCB issued the
City Order No 2000-046 which updated its Waste Discharge Requirements for the landfill to
incorporate general provisions for anticipated site development and to bring the landfill into
compliance with appropriate portions of Title 27.
The images shown in Figures B, C, D, and E show the evolution of the Oyster Point Landfill. The
image in Figure B shows the initial placement of landfill in 1958 prior to the filling of the Spit.
Figure C shows the landfill in 1963 and includes the Spit and the new City operated marina
facility. The image in Figure D is from 1972 and shows the full Oyster Point Landfill after
landfilling operations ceased but prior to the closure activities being completed. Figure E shows
the landfill in 1979 at the completion of major landfill remedial improvements and harbor
improvements. Note that the remedial work performed at the Spit in 1979 resulted in a larger
footprint of the landfill as compared to the image in 1972.
Since the remedial landfill improvements were completed in 1979, the refuse and underlying Bay
Mud settled in various locations on the Oyster Point landfill. In 2005, the City received a letter
from the RWQCB requiring the City to correct a violation of Order No. R2-2000-046 since water
was observed ponding on the landfill. Ponding and flooding on a landfill site can impact
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 4 of 14
groundwater and surface water quality and can potentially cause erosion of the landfill cap which
as a result could expose refuse material, create leaching of waste pollutants, and exacerbate
settlement of the site. To date, there is no evidence these negative possibilities have occurred, and
most of the potential concerns are being corrected as part of the Kilroy Oyster Point Development
improvements. However, the Spit area is outside of the boundary of the Kilroy Development.
Typically, several times each year during King tides, portions of the Spit area experiences water
overtopping for short periods of time. Future sea level rise projections indicate this may become a
more common occurrence. The image shown in Figure F was taken during a King tide event.
III. Engineering Study
Three options are being considered for resolving the flooding at the Spit as follows:
Option 1: Elevate the Spit to accommodate the predicted Sea Level Rise in the year 2100.
Option 2: Elevate the Spit to accommodate the predicted Sea Level Rise in the year 2050 but
provide for adapting to future rise in sea level.
Option 3: Remove all the landfill within Spit and return the area to Bay waters.
Both Option 1 and Option 2 would include the installation of a steel sheet pile retaining wall along
the perimeter of the landfill refuse and the import of engineered fill material to raise the grades of
the site. Both these options would be designed to accommodate future commercial development
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 5 of 14
on the Spit. Figure G shows a plan view of the Spit and the proposed location of the containment
wall.
Figures H and I show the cross section of the proposed improvements relative to the tide
elevations.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 6 of 14
Option 3 is complete removal of all soil and refuse from the Spit, returning the area to the Bay.
This requires installation of a temporary cofferdam surrounding the perimeter of the Spit to keep
the Bay waters from entering the project area during the excavation and disposal of all soil and
refuse material encapsulated within the landfill. The refuse material would most likely be disposed
of at a Class I RCRA Hazardous Waste landfill. In addition, any landfill leachate water
encountered during the excavation would be disposed of as hazardous material. There would also
be a significant amount of environmental soil testing needed of the waste material and
confirmation samples of the underlying bay mud to verify that all hazardous material is removed
before the site is returned to Bay waters.
Pros and Cons of the Various Options:
Description and
Estimated Cost
Pros Cons
Option 1 Elevate Spit to
accommodate the
predicted SLR in
2100.
Best Case: $17M
Worst Case: $34M
● Resolves the long-term
flooding and RWQCB
violation as one project.
● Accommodates future
development.
● More expensive than
Option 2
● Predictions for SLR
in 2100 could change
over the next 50 years
and require further
mitigations.
Option 2 Elevate Spit to
accommodate the
predicted SLR in
2050 but provide
for adapting to
future SLR.
Best Case: $15M
Worst Case: $30M
● Resolves the immediate
flooding and RWQCB
violation.
● Less expensive than
Option 1 in the short term.
● Allows more flexibility
for adapting design to more
accurate SLR predictions.
● Accommodates future
development.
● Requires a future
project to accommodate
SLR projected for 2100.
● May make more
difficult the construction
of a ferry terminal
Option 3 Remove landfill
contained within
the Spit and return
the area to Bay
waters.
Est. Cost: $45
● Resolves the RWQCB
violation.
● An environmental
improvement to SF Bay.
● The highest cost
solution.
● No future
development
opportunity on the Spit
IV. Future Use of the Fortified Site
With an expanded footprint, the fortified Spit presents the opportunity to serve South San
Francisco residents, commuters and visitors through indoor and outdoor spaces for recreation,
retail, and entertainment. Working with SB Architects, staff identified programs that complement
current Oyster Point activities and users as well as the increased daytime and weekend
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 7 of 14
population the Kilroy Oyster Point Development is slated to bring to the area. Figure J, below,
shows the orientation of the site relative to other developments and highlights the directional
view of the Bay.
Figure J: Conditions Map
Site Programs & Amenities
Outdoor spaces are proposed to include a perimeter walking path offering breathtaking views
along with access to docks for non-motorized boating such as kayaks, canoes and dragon boats.
Flexible plaza spaces would offer opportunities for events, performances and markets. First and
last mile amenities such as bike and scooter rental could serve commuters as well as offer
recreational activities for residents.
Utilizing the existing Guest Dock, the addition of an accessible ramp, ticketing kiosk and shelter
for protection from the elements would allow for weekday commuter services to San Francisco
Mission Bay and The Ferry Building as well as weekend service to destinations such as The
Chase Center and Pier 39.
Building Programs & Amenities
In addition to kiosks that could provide grab & go items such as coffee, pastries and sandwiches,
the building structure itself is proposed to include multipurpose rooms for Parks & Recreation to
classes and activities as well as rented for events such as weddings, celebrations and conferences
with pre-function, catering and storage. Public restrooms would serve users of both indoor and
outdoor spaces. A minimal amount of office space could accommodate the Harbor Master and/or
Recreation staff.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 8 of 14
The building and site design are intended to harmonize with the new structures coming in as part
of the beach and waterfront improvements as well as the new Kilroy Developments with a mixture
of materials suitable for the marine environment. The building orientation along the west side of
the Spit would offer protection from western breezes for the bulk of the outdoor gathering and
programmable spaces on the east side of the spit. Use of glass would offer views out to the Bay
while creating a transparent and inviting space for visitors.
Engagement
Conceptual direction for Spit fortification and expanded ferry service was presented as an
informational item to the City-San Mateo County Harbor District Liaison Committee on December
12, 2020. Additionally, City staff have met with Harbor District staff to ensure close collaboration
on plans moving forward. Additional engagement with stakeholders including the Dragon Boat
Club, residents living on boats at Oyster Point Marina, businesses, residents, commuters and
recreation users of the area would further inform the program opportunities and design.
Precedent imagery along with site and building designs are included as Attachment A: Site and
Architecture Package.
V. Market Analysis
Increasing Traffic Demand
The East of 101 area (E101) is among the Bay Area’s fastest growing employment districts. Home
to approximately 28,000 employees, E101 represents an international hub for life science and
biotechnology as well as a regional center for industry, logistics, and travel. Over the next two
decades, E101 is expected to add over 13 million square feet of mostly office and research &
development (R&D) space, roughly doubling its daytime population to over 55,000 employees.
Approximately half of this growth is already approved or under construction, while the remainder
is expected to be approved and developed in the future.
A significant investment in transportation infrastructure and services is needed to accommodate
and realize expected growth. E101’s few points of vehicle access constrain travel to a few
congested traffic bottlenecks, while transit and active transportation options are limited. The
temporary closure of the South Airport Boulevard Bridge in 2018 illustrated the lack of resilience
in the transportation system. Moreover, regional forces beyond the City’s control – housing
affordability, jobs-housing imbalance, and an overburdened freeway system – may increasingly
constrict the Area’s accessibility and competitiveness.
As outlined in the City’s E101 Master Traffic Plan, Mobility 2020, the City established
transportation commitments in five policy areas including:
1. Expanding Throughput Capacity
2. Maintaining Efficient Street Operations
3. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
4. Reducing Drive Alone Mode Share
5. Improve Safety to all street users
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 9 of 14
These policy objectives are difficult to attain as transportation infrastructure has not kept up with
the changing needs and the evolution of the employment base east of Highway 101. Alternative
transit modes are needed in order to expand throughput, reduce VMT, and reduce single occupancy
vehicles. Ferry service is explored in this report as a possible alternate mode of travel.
Potential Routes & Farebox
New transit alternatives are necessary in order for the area to remain competitive globally. While
existing ferry service is provided by WETA, currently only East -West routes are available. The
City hired a consultant, Tideline Marine (Tideline), to analyze and study potential routes and
ridership between South San Francisco’s Oyster Point Marina and popular commuter hubs in San
Francisco. Tideline provided an analysis of potential North-South routes beginning with an
analysis of ridership and farebox recovery.
Tideline defined the trip origin and destination
regions to capture users who lived and worked
in close proximity to the ferry landing locations
on both ends. The yellow shaded region (figure
1) represents the region in San Francisco used
for the data analysis. The blue region represents
the South San Francisco region used. Third
party data sources modeled average daily trips
taken from San Francisco to South San
Francisco and from South San Francisco to San
Francisco in 2019. Data showed the average
number of trips taken per day across different
time periods adjusted for seasonality.
Ridership analysis projected increases based on
3% growth year-over-year. The total trips
include round trip information from San
Francisco to South San Francisco. Ranging from
a conservative 5% growth to a robust 20%
growth, ferry service has the capacity to grow
from a couple of hundred daily passengers in
2021 to over 1,200 daily riders in five years. By
Year 2026, at 5% ridership, we anticipate 304
daily riders and at 20% ridership, 1,215 daily
riders.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 10 of 14
figure 2
Ridership analysis (figure 2) shows that in order to meet the minimum farebox for a breakeven
level of service, a ferry operator would have to meet the minimum threshold of 5% ridership
utilizing a 50-passenger vessel. In order to breakeven utilizing a 150-passenger vessel, the
minimum threshold is 5% of potential riders beginning in 2024. Anything less than the minimum
threshold of 5% does not meet the minimum break-even level for service.
x- farebox does not meet break-even threshold
figure 3
Expansion of ferry service remains an attractive alternative to single occupancy automobile
commute. Tideline proposed various routes, with a focus on the North-South connection currently
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 11 of 14
lacking at Oyster Point Marina. Ferry service provides amenities traditionally provided on other
modes of transit including WiFi, concessions onboard, and bike storage.
Weekday commuter service from Oyster Point Marina’s guest dock (adjacent to the SPIT) to San
Francisco’s Mission Bay ferry landing and the Ferry Building was analyzed with various vessel
sizes and landing options. The Mission Bay ferry landing provides a connection between two life
science clusters as well as having the potential for expanded weekend service for events at the
adjacent Chase Center. The Ferry Building landing connects South San Francisco commuters to
the nearby economic center of San Francisco, the Financial District. Compared to traditional bus
transit and auto travel, the ferry service transit time between Oyster Point Marina and Mission
Bay/Ferry Building is competitive at 35 minutes. During commute hours, the same trip by car can
take up to 50 minutes and traditional bus transit 90 minutes.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 12 of 14
Additionally, Tideline explored future weekend
service between Oyster Point Marina and other San
Francisco ferry landings including Mission Bay,
Oracle Park, Ferry Building, Pier 15, and Hyde
Street. Expansion of weekend service benefits our
residents with convenient transit service to Oracle
Park and the Chase Center for live events.
Potential weekend service to all five stops could
provide 2 roundtrip trips per day and hold up to 150
passengers. This ferry service would take between
30-90 minutes roundtrip. Comparatively speaking,
an automobile trip may take anywhere between 16-
50 minutes and traditional transit may take up to 60
minutes.
The weekend ferry service would be ADA
accessible, provide concessions onboard, WiFi,
bike storage, and restrooms.
Cost for construction of a ferry terminal and
associated ferry dock is approximately between $9
million to $12 million.
Employee Survey
During the annual Transportation Demand Management program, staff provided employers with
an optional ferry service survey to gauge the interest of employees East of 101. In light of the
pandemic, the response sample size was limited at 129 responses. Survey questions focused on the
likelihood of employees taking a ferry between San Francisco’s Ferry Building, Oracle Park,
Chase Center, and Berkeley Marina and South San Francisco Oyster Point Marina. Additionally,
survey questions requested more information on the employee’s arrival and departure times.
The majority of employees responded that they would be more likely to take a direct ferry from
the Ferry Building to Oyster Point (47%) over other San Francisco locations (Oracle Park and
Chase Center). Interestingly, employees did express a likelihood to take a direct ferry from the
Berkeley Marina to Oyster Point.
Eighty-two percent of employees also indicate that the majority of them would arrive between
7am-9am with 3% arriving before 7am and 15% after 9am. Seventy-nine percent of employees
would depart from Oyster Point between 4-6pm with 12% departing after 6pm.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 13 of 14
This ferry survey supplemented the optional TDM reporting requirement this year. Due to COVID-
19, staff did not mandate that employers respond to this survey. Post pandemic, it is staff’s hope
to procure more data to better understand employee needs going forward.
VI. Financial Plan
Financing the fortification of the Spit and follow-on ferry terminal will require many partners to
assist with the cost. Depending upon the option chosen, potential funders may include:
Foundation Work Only
● State and/or Federal Sea Level Rise Grants
● City Funding
Foundation Work and Ferry Terminal/Pier
● Developers
● Biotech / Tech Companies
● SMC Transportation Authority
● State and/or Federal Sea Level Rise Grants
● Transit Grants
● City Funding
VII. Next Steps
Pending direction from City Council, Staff intends to continue required engineering and design
work on sea level rise fortification and construction of a ferry terminal with expanded commuter
ferry service. This includes engaging with the numerous regulatory agencies, from which permits
and guidance are required before construction. All options being considered must be vetted for
Regulatory Permits by the US Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, the RWQCB, and the D epartment
of Fish and Game and will require various biological and other studies as part of the Environmental
clearance required under CEQA and NEPA.
Moving forward with the project requires a substantial amount of preliminary engineering to
further develop the project alternatives. Direction from the City Council will be needed for the
desired Option to pursue with the Regulators but the ultimate decision will be at the discretion of
the Regulators and what they will permit to be constructed.
Staff will also engage with potential funding partners to develop a solid financing plan for the
needed and desired improvements.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Fortification against Sea Level Rise and expansion of commuter ferry service helps achieve the
following goals/objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan:
Priority #2 Quality of Life – Complete preliminary design of spit area sea level rise
protection plan, and develop construction funding plan.
Priority #2 Quality of Life – Progress on design of new ferry building, and develop
construction funding plan.
Staff Report
May 25, 2021
Page 14 of 14
FISCAL IMPACT
Fortification of the Spit may require a substantial investment of funds from various sources,
including the City. The proposed fiscal year 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Plan budget includes
a request to City Council for $1,000,000 to continue engineering study and design, moving this
project closer to construction.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the update on fortification against Sea Level Rise
and expansion of commuter ferry service and provide feedback to Staff as appropriate.
Attachments:
A: Site and Architecture Package
B: Presentation
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
PRELIMINARY VISION
May 20, 2021
SITE ANALYSIS
Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Companies
Hotels
12
11
14
13
19
2018
17
16
15
10
7 5
2
1
4
6
3
8
9
SAN BRUNOSAN BRUNO
CHANNELCHANNEL
SFO AIRPORTSFO AIRPORT
OYSTER POINT OYSTER POINT
CHANNELCHANNEL
FERRY FERRY
TERMINALTERMINAL
FERRY ROUTE:FERRY ROUTE:
- ALAMEDA & OAKLAND
- HARBOR BAY
Bayshore FreewayBayshore Freeway(U.S. Route 101)(U.S. Route 101)Bayshore FreewayBayshore Freeway(U.S. Route 101)(U.S. Route 101)SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO
BAYBAY
7 STY
8 STY6 STY
7 STY
7 STY 5 STY
11 STY
11 STY
16 STY
12 STY
12 STY
12 STY
18 STY
21 STY
OYSTER POINTOYSTER POINT
FUTUREFUTURE
HOTEL SITEHOTEL SITE
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021SITE ANALYSIS
PLACES OF INTEREST
Oyster Point Ferry Terminal
1 Oyster Point Marina
2 Oyster Point Park
3 Sunesis (Phama), Velocity (Pharma)
4 Gymtowne Gymnastics SSF
5 Corporate Offices
6 NGM (Biotech), Amgen (Biotech)
7 The Cove at Oyster Point
8 AC Hotel by Marriott
9 Courtyard and Residence Inn by
Marriott
10 Ipsen (Pharma), Ultragenyx
(Biotech)
11 Actelion (Pharma), Mission Bio
(Biotech), Tizona (Biotech)
12 Pionyr (Biotech), Amphivena
(Biotech), Achaogen (Pharma)
13 Corporate Offices
14 Audentes (Pharma), RAPT (Biotech)
15 Larkspur Landing Hotel
16 Hilton Garden Inn
17 Hampton Inn
18 Embassy Suites by Hilton
19 UPS
20 Genentech
BAY TRAIL
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021 SITE ANALYSIS
05:47 am
8:34 pm
4:55 pm 07:20am
PREVAILING
WIND
DIRECTION
SOLAR PATH
MARINA
UPS
CUSTOMER CENTER
FERRY
TERMINAL
FUTURE PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE
FUTURE
HOTEL SITE
MARINA
PROJECT
SITE
BAY
VIEWS
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
EXISTING SITE IMAGERY
INSPIRATION IMAGERY
FROM WORKSHOP
BAY TRAIL ACCESSCONNECTION TO NATURE FARMERS MARKET
FLEXIBLE + MODULAR SPACE
DAILY COMMUTER GRAB-N-GO COMMUNITY
INTERACTIVE ART
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
LIFESTYLE
INSPIRATION IMAGERY - FROM WORKSHOP
CONNECT PUBLIC TO THE SHORELINE
PUBLIC SPACE
ACCESS TO NATURE GATEWAY LOCAL FAUNA
SOCIAL SPACE
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
PUBILC REALM
INSPIRATION IMAGERY - FROM WORKSHOP
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
ARCHITECTURE
INSPIRATION IMAGERY - FROM WORKSHOP
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
SITE
BAY TRAIL
EXISTING SITE
The site is located at the Oyster Point Marina, a public marina
connecting riders from around the bay area to South San Francisco.
FUTURE HOTEL
SITE
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
RAISING SITE
The site is lifted +12ft to account for future sea level rise, as
well as to align with the new road & hotel grading.
LIFT SITE
FUTURE HOTEL
SITE
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
PREVAILING
WIND DIRECTION
SITE OBJECTIVE
The massing is positioned on one side to provide shelter from prevailing winds,
allowing a large portion of the site to be activated with flexible public spaces.
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
VIEW ORIENTATION
The massing is rotated to direct views towards bay and away from
the marina.
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
STEPPING OF MASSING
One end of the masing is stepped down to create an amphitheater and
the other end stepped up to create a high ceiling multi purpose room.
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
PUBLIC CIRCULATION
Central circulation and perimeter trail
TO HOTEL
VEHICULAR
ACCESS
TO FERRY
BAY TRAIL
TO DOCK
PERIMETER
PROMENADE
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
CREATE SHELTER
Provide shelter from the elements through nested “sails” in the
architecture
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
OPPORTUNITY - FLEXIBLE EVENTS PLAZA
EVENTS
PLAZA
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
OPPORTUNITY - LOOK OUT POINTS
LOOK-OUT
POINT
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
TERRACE
TERRACE
OPPORTUNITY - DINING TERRACES
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
FIRST LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY
Pedestrean access to Bike & Scooter parking along with human
powered water activities (kayaks, boating, etc)
MASTER PLAN
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
OVERALL SITE PLAN
FUTURE
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PROMENADE
LIVE ABOARD
MARINA
FERRY
DOCK
EXISTING
FERRY DOCK
EXISTING
PARKING
EXISTING
BUILDING
FERRY
BUILDING
DROP
OFF
FUTURE
HOTEL
BAY TRAIL
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021 GROUND FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 01
0 30 60 120 ft 1”= 60’
+12 FT
+2 FT
+12 FT
+2 FT
Retail
Ticket
Amphitheater
WC
Office
Multi Purpose Room
Kitchen
Trash
Pre-function
Ferry Dock
Flexible Events
SpaceADA Parking
Vehicular Drop-Off
Terrace
Look-out Point
F&B Terrace
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021 ROOF PLAN
0 30 60 120 ft 1”= 60’
MEP Parapet
SECTIONS
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021 DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION
0 15 30 60 ft 1”= 30’
KEY PLAN
Drop-Off Public
Promenade
+16 ft
+20 ft
Dock Access
Amphitheater Restaurant WC Support Multi-Purpose
Room
Multi-Purpose
Terrace
WC
MEP
MASSING VIEWS
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
VIEW 01
OVERLOOKING TERRACE - HOTEL BEYOND
THE FERRY AT OYSTER POINT
Visioning Study - May 20, 2021
VIEW 02
FROM BAY TRAIL
THANK YOU
The Spit at Oyster Point
Study Session
May 25th, 2021
Objective
Introduce City Council to Sea Level Rise impacts to the
Spit at Oyster Point, regulatory mandates and present a
case for improvements. Requesting feedback from
Council and direction to move forward with design and
construction.
Site Location
4
Site Location
Current Construction Images
Site Background
1958 1963
Site Background
1972 1979
●Approximately one acre in
size
●Location of San Mateo
County Harbor District Office
Building
●Connects to Guest Dock used
for commute service
92021
The Spit at Oyster Point Today
High Tide Inundation
Normal Conditions Flooding
●Comply with Regional Water Quality
Control Board mandate
●Resilient to sea level rise and the 2100
100-year base flood elevations as
determined by FEMA
●Ferry Terminal for North/South service
Why Are We Doing This?
Feasibility Study
●Council Appropriated $700k
through CIP 2019/2020
process
●Study examined Engineering,
Program, Site and
Transportation Opportunities
Engineering
Conceptual Enclosure Layout
Proposed Solution - Sheet Pile Wall
Project Concepts - Option 1: SPIT to 2100 SLR BFE
COMBINATION RETAINING WALL / FLOOD WALL
Project Concepts - Option 2: SPIT to 2050 SLR BFE
PHASED CONSTRUCTION APPROACH
Biology
●Sensitive Land Cover Types
○Coastal Salt Marsh
■0.67 acre borders edge of the Spit
○Tidal Open Water
■0.74 acre of the Project Area
Biology
Cost Estimate Table
Option 2Option 1 Option 3
Worst Case $30M*$34M*
Best Cast $15M$17M $45M*
Description Phased
Construction
Approach
Combo Retaining
Wall / Sea Wall
SPIT Removal
SLR 2100 2050
*Mitigation Measures are unknown and could be a significant cost.
Vision Post
Fortification
Vision for Oyster Point Ferry Terminal
Vision for Oyster Point
Kilroy Realty Oyster Point Development
Site Opportunities
Transportation
Opportunities
Expanded Ferry Service - Ridership Study
●SSF <-> SF ferry
commute service
○SF Ferry Building
○SF Mission Bay
●Competitive travel times
●Additional amenities
Ridership Analysis
X - Does not meet break even farebox recovery
Potential Weekend Routes
●Expanded weekend service may
include:
○Mission Bay (Chase Center)
○SF Oracle Park
○SF Ferry Building
○Pier 15
○Hyde Street
Timeline
Site Investigation, Develop Alt &
Preliminary Design
Environmental Permitting and Clearance
Public Outreach
Final Design
Construction
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Capital Cost
Foundation
Design &
Construction
Best Case: $17M
Worst Case $34M
Ferry Building/
Terminal
Design &
Construction
$9M to $12M
Total Best Case: $26M
Worst Case: $47M
*Mitigation Measures are unknown and could be a significant cost.
Foundation
Design &
Construction
Best Case: $15M
Worst Case $30M
Ferry Building/
Terminal Design
& Construction
$9M to $12M
Total Best Case: $24M
Worst Case: $42M
Build to 2100 Sea Level Protection Build to 2050 Sea Level Protection
Funding Sources
FOUNDATION WORK ONLY
●State and/or Federal Sea
Level Rise Grants
●City Funding
FOUNDATION WORK and
FERRY TERMINAL/PIER
●Developers
●Biotech / Tech Companies
●SMC Transportation
Authority
●State and/or Federal Sea
Level Rise Grants
●Transit Grants
●City Funding
Thank You