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