City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
GrandAvenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
Update on the SPIT at Oyster Point Marina (Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer, Public Works Department)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Harbor District Liaison Subcommittee receive an update on efforts to address sea level rise at the Spit at Oyster Point.
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.
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.
City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
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 has operated the municipal marina and a park at the landfill and manages property leases for other facilities under a joint powers 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 lowpermeability soil was placed on top of the compacted fill. Additional remedial measures were constructed between 1979 and 1981. They included installation of a 2- to 3-foot thick Bay Mud cap across the site, City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
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 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. It should be noted 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.
City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
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 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. Most of the violations are being corrected as part of the Kilroy Oyster Point Development improvements. However, the Spit remains in violation of the Order and must still be corrected.
Given all the landfill settlement that has occurred on
the Spit, it is now a common occurrence for the
entire area to be inundated with tidal waters at
extreme high tides. This situation will get worse as
Sea Level Rise becomes a reality. The image shown
in Figure F was taken during a high tide and shows
the Harbor Master Building not accessible. This
condition is not only inconvenient to Marina patrons,
but it also poses an environmental hazard to SF Bay
given the potential of Bay waters mixing with the
closed landfill refuse and leachate water.
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.
City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
Both Option 1 and Option 2 would include the installation of a steel sheetpile 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 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.
City of South San Francisco Page 6 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
Option 3 would include the installation of a temporary cofferdam surrounding the perimeter of the Spit to keep the Bay waters from entering the project area. It would also include 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. Est. Cost:
$17-34M
● 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. Est.
Cost: $15-30M
● 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. ●
Accommodatesfuture
development.
● Requires a future project to
accommodate SLR projected
for 2100.
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
Next Steps:
All options being considered must be vetted for Regulatory Permits by the US Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, the RWQCB, and the Department 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.
City of South San Francisco Page 7 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
At a special City Council meeting on May 25, 2021, staff presented an update on the HMS Project. The presentation included a discussion on how best to address Sea Level Rise at the Spit at Oyster Point; possible construction of a ferry terminal building at the Spit; and possible expansion of commuter ferry service to Oyster Point. Staff presented the City Council with three options to address the long-term sea-level rise adaptation of the Spit with an estimated cost range of $15 million to $34 million.
As the project moved forward, staff identified a potential maintenance project; restoration of the spit to the original grades established by the 1979 landfill closure project. Restoring the grades to the levels established in 1979 will raise the area higher than the current King Tides and the 100-year design storm water surface elevations. In addition to raising the grades of the site, the project replaces the existing roadway with new hardscape and landscape features to accommodate the existing Harbor Master Building and public access requirements to be imposed by BCDC. The project provides ADA improvements to the guest dock and constructs a small shelter to protect ferry patrons from the elements. The project footprint is consistent with the long-term development goals for the site.
The cost to implement the maintenance project is estimated to be between $4 million to $8 million, depending on the type of surface improvements constructed and any environmental mitigations required by regulatory agencies. Completion of the maintenance project ensures compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order, and maintains and improves access to the area until the long-term project is complete.
Amending the existing Consulting Services Agreement with Wilsey Ham is necessary to update the scope of services to include the following:
• Preparation of Regulatory Permit Applications including preliminary engineering with 35% plans for Geotechnical, Civil Engineering, and Landscape Architecture and complete project narratives. • Environmental Clearance for CEQA and NEPA documentation (May require public outreach, Planning Commission and City Council approval) • Prepare Final Plans and Specifications/bid documents for the Phase 1 project Site Design and Planning
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 population the Kilroy Oyster Point Development is slated to bring to the area.
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
City of South San Francisco Page 8 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
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.
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
City of South San Francisco Page 9 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
The building and site design is 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
The building and landscape spaces as conceived were reviewed with James Pruett, General Manager of the San Mateo Harbor District. He generally supported the project for it’s opportunity to better utilize the Guest Dock and improved access and amenities for boaters. Additional engagement with stakeholders including the Dragon Boat, live-aboards, 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: Site and Architecture Package.
Increasing Traffic Demand
The East of 101 Area is among the Bay Area’s fastest growing employment districts. Home to approximately 28,000 employees, the Area 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, the Area 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. The Area’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 illustrates 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
These policy objectives are difficult to attain as transportation infrastructure has not kept up with the changing File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
City of South San Francisco Page 10 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
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 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 us 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.
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
City of South San Francisco Page 11 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
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.
This break even service may start as early as this year. However, in order to breakeven with 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 lacking at Oyster Point Marina.
File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
City of South San Francisco Page 12 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
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.
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.
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 File #: 22-229 Agenda Date: 4/1/2022
Version: 1 Item #: 4.
City of South San Francisco Page 13 of 16 Printed on 3/30/2022 powered by Legistar™
pandemic, the response sample size was limited at 129 responses. Survey questions focused on the likelihood of employees to take ferry service 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 indicated 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.
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 our employees needs going forward.
Financial Plan
Engineering Design $1M
ShoringConstruction $15-34M
Building/Landscape Design $1-2M
Building/LandscapeConstruction $8-10M
Total $25-47M
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Harbor District Liaison Subcommittee receive an update on efforts to address sea level rise at the Spit at Oyster Point.