+
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING:
SUMMARY OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
02.28.2024
SCOPE AREA
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
SCOPE AREA
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
EXISTING STREET TYPOLOGIES
KEY:
A. HISTORIC COMMERCIAL
• 75’-0” to 80’-0” R.O.W.
• Mix of restaurants, retail, other commercial
• Sidewalks, streetscape amenities, diagonal parking
B. COMMERCIAL ALLEY
• 20’-0” to 24’-0” R.O.W.
• Parking lots and rear access to commercial
• Drive lane with partial parallel parking one side
C. RESIDENTIAL AVENUE
• 55’-0” to 60’-0” R.O.W.
• Mostly single family homes w/ driveways, parks
• Sidewalks, some trees, both sides parallel parking
D. RESIDENTIAL LANE
• 20’-0” to 22’-0” R.O.W.
• Mixed, dense residential and parks
• Drive lane with partial parallel parking one side
SCOPE AREA
Grand Ave.
Linden Ave.
Miller Ave.
Lux Ave.
California Ave.
Pine Ave.
Aspen Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Tamarak Ln.
7th Ln.
8th Ln.
9th Ln.
6th Ln.
4th Ln
3rd Ln
Spruce Ave.Maple Ave.
Cypress Ave.
Airport Blvd
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
LIGHTING ZONES - RECOMMENDED LIGHT LEVELS
GOAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL
GOAL FOR
COMMERCIAL
LIGHTING ZONE 1 (LZ1)
• Low ambient light levels
• Single and two family residential communities
LIGHTING ZONE 2 (LZ2)
• Moderate ambient light levels
• Commercial and/or business areas with evening activities embedded in predominantly residential areas
• Includes neighborhood business districts
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
HISTORIC COMMERCIAL
• GRAND AVE
• LINDEN AVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
HISTORIC COMMERCIAL
For Grand Avenue, targeting 1-2 foot candles...
• In general, light levels are lower than the targets
• Only 35% of the survey points fall in the range
• Uniformity is also less than is desirable due to the existing storefront lights, illuminated signage, etc.
0.1-1.2 Foot Candle (existing)
0.5-1.9 Foot Candle (existing)
EXISTING LIGHT LEVEL SUMMARY
SCOPE AREA
STUDY BLOCK
Grand Ave.
Linden Ave.
Miller Ave.
Lux Ave.
California Ave.
Pine Ave.
Aspen Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Tamarak Ln.
7th Ln.
8th Ln.
9th Ln.
6th Ln.
3rd Ln
Cypress Ave.Airport Blvd
Spruce Ave.
Maple Ave.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Add Festoon Lighting Over Sidewalk
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Replace Acorn Heads with New LED Luminaires
GRAND AVE.
DESIGN OPTIONS
PROS
• Preserves historic poles themselves
• Consistent with retrofit approach previously tested on some poles
CONS
PROS
• Adds light directly over the pedestrian sidewalk space • Placemaking potential for Grand Avenue
CONS
• Ongoing maintenance of replacing bulbs (LED bulb
replacement is less frequent)
• Requires coordination/buy-in from building owners to
attach string lighting to buildings
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Add Festoon Lighting Over Sidewalk
ESTIMATED COST: $927,922 ESTIMATED COST: $2,185,095
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Replace Acorn Heads with New LED Luminaires
RECOMMENDATION: OPTION 1+2
$3,113,017
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
See Appendix for Complete Recommendations, Calculations, Costs +
ESTIMATED COSTS + RECOMMENDATION
GRAND AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
COMMERCIAL ALLEY
• 4TH LANE
• 3RD LANE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
COMMERCIAL ALLEY
For 4th and 3rd, we are targeting 1-2 foot candles...
• In general, light levels are lower than 1-2 foot candles. • Only 19% of the survey points fall in the 1-2 footcanlde range
• Uniformity is also still less than is desirable. The area in green has a uniformity of 16:1, for example.
2-5 Foot Candle (4th lane existing)
3rd lane existing; light from new bldg.
SCOPE AREA
Grand Ave.
Linden Ave.
Miller Ave.
Lux Ave.
California Ave.
Pine Ave.
Aspen Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Tamarak Ln.
7th Ln.
8th Ln.
9th Ln.
6th Ln.
3rd Ln
4th Ln
STUDY BLOCK
Cypress Ave.Airport Blvd
Spruce Ave.
Maple Ave.
EXISTING LIGHT LEVEL SUMMARY
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
COMMERCIAL ALLEY
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Add fixtures to existing intermediate poles
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Incentivize Owners to Add Wall-Mounted Fixtures
DESIGN OPTIONS
PROS
• Does not require new poles
CONS
• Dependent on the participation of building owners, and therefore uniformity is difficult to control
PROS
• Utilizes existing infrastructure
• Will help with distribution and uniformity
CONS
• Requires coordination with PG&E - they may not want
additional infrastructure in their already loaded poles SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
COMMERCIAL ALLEY
*Cost assumes 100% owner participation; budget number can be modified based on target outcome
ESTIMATED COSTS + RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION: OPTION 1
$142,898
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Add fixtures to existing intermediate poles
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Incentivize Owners to Add Wall-Mounted Fixtures
ESTIMATED COST: $142,898 ESTIMATED COST: $517,658
See Appendix for Complete Recommendations, Calculations, Costs SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RESIDENTIAL AVENUE
• JUNIPER AVE
• ASPEN AVE
• PINE AVE
• CALIFORNIA AVE
• LUX AVE
• MILLER AVE
• CYPRESS AVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RESIDENTIAL AVENUE
0.3-0.9 Foot Candle (existing)
Pine Ave existing condition
Pine Ave existing condition
SCOPE AREA
Grand Ave.
Linden Ave.
Miller Ave.
Lux Ave.
California Ave.
Pine Ave.
Aspen Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Tamarak Ln.
7th Ln.
8th Ln.
9th Ln.
6th Ln.
4th Ln
3rd Ln
STUDY BLOCK
Cypress Ave.Airport Blvd
Spruce Ave.
Maple Ave.
• For Pine Ave, we are targeting 0.2 - 0.4 footcandles. • In general, light levels are closer to the target than Grand or 4th Lane, although still a little low.
• 62% of the survey points fall in the 0.2 - 0.4 Range
• Uniformity is also closer to the target. The area in green has a uniformity of 8:1, for example.
EXISTING LIGHT LEVEL SUMMARY
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
DESIGN OPTIONS
RESIDENTIAL AVENUE
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Solar Powered fixtures
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Incentivize Owners to Add Wall-Mounted Fixtures
PROS
• Does not require new poles
CONS
• Dependent on the participation of building owners, and therefore uniformity is difficult to control
PROS
• Utilizes solar power
• Placement is flexible to help create more even distribution and uniformity
CONS
• Requires additional maintenance
• New poles will require minor disruption to sidewalk to install SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RESIDENTIAL AVENUE
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Solar Powered fixtures
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Incentivize Owners to Add Wall-Mounted Fixtures
*Cost assumes 100% owner participation; budget number can be modified based on target outcome
ESTIMATED COST: $340,054 ESTIMATED COST: $1,543,273
See Appendix for Complete Recommendations, Calculations, Costs RECOMMENDATION: OPTION 2
$1,543,273
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED COST + RECOMMENDATION
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RESIDENTIAL LANE
• 9TH LANE
• 8TH LANE
• 7TH LANE
• 6TH LANE
• TAMARAK LANE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RESIDENTIAL LANES
• For 8th Lane, we are targeting 0.2 - 0.4 footcandles (LZ1) • In general, light levels are closer to our target
• 60% of the survey points fall in the LZ1 range
• Uniformity is also closer to the target.
• The playground area is low for recommended levels
0.3-1.7 Foot Candle (existing)
8th Lane existing condition
8th Lane playground 5th Lane existing condition
SCOPE AREA
Grand Ave.
Linden Ave.
Miller Ave.
Lux Ave.
California Ave.
Pine Ave.
Aspen Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Tamarak Ln.
7th Ln.
8th Ln.
9th Ln.
6th Ln.
4th Ln
3rd Ln
Spruce Ave.Maple Ave.
Cypress Ave.
Airport Blvd
Cypress Ave.Airport Blvd
Spruce Ave.
Maple Ave.
STUDY BLOCK
EXISTING LIGHT LEVEL SUMMARY
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Add fixtures to existing intermediate poles
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Incentivize Owners to Add Wall-Mounted Fixtures
DESIGN OPTIONS
RESIDENTIAL LANES
PROS
• Does not require new poles
CONS
• Dependent on the participation of building owners, and therefore uniformity is difficult to control
PROS
• Utilizes existing infrastructure
• Will help with distribution and uniformity
CONS
• Requires coordination with PG&E - they may not want
additional infrastructure in their already loaded poles SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RESIDENTIAL LANE
ESTIMATED COST + RECOMMENDATION
ESTIMATED COST: $103,100 ESTIMATED COST: $318,000
DESIGN OPTION 2:
Add fixtures to existing intermediate poles
DESIGN OPTION 1:
Incentivize Owners to Add Wall-Mounted Fixtures
RECOMMENDATION: OPTION 2
$318,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
*Cost assumes 100% owner participation; budget number can be modified based on target outcome
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
RECOMMENDATION ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY
COMMERCIAL ALLEY
$142,898*
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
RESIDENTIAL LANE
$318,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
$5,117,188
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
COMBINED
RESIDENTIAL AVENUE
$1,543,273
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
SCOPE AREA
Grand Ave.
Linden Ave.
Miller Ave.
Lux Ave.
California Ave.
Pine Ave.
Aspen Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Tamarak Ln.
7th Ln.
8th Ln.
9th Ln.
6th Ln.
4th Ln
3rd Ln
Spruce Ave.Maple Ave.
Cypress Ave.
Airport Blvd
COMPLETE SCOPE AREA
$3,113,017
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
HISTORIC COMMERCIAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN + OLD TOWN LIGHTING +
+
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS