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