Momentum is building to clear the red tape for a transformative biotech and housing development along South San Francisco’s slice of the Bayfront, under a recent county Harbor District decision.
The San Mateo County Harbor District Board of Commissioners voted 3-2, with Sabrina Brennan and Ed Larenas dissenting, to approve a proposed agreement with South San Francisco officials regarding a massive project near Oyster Point Marina/Park.
The decision Wednesday, Aug. 16, helps lay preliminary groundwork for infrastructure improvements tied to the approximately 3 million square-foot development proposed adjacent to the city-owned and district-run marina.
Though the South San Francisco City Council must later also approve the proposal clarifying terms of a deal addressing operations near the Bayshore, the Harbor District’s board president lauded the merits of the agreement’s intent.
“This is going to be a tremendous improvement to the land, people, employment and shops,” Tom Mattusch said. “There’s a whole lot of benefits that will come into play around this development.”
The project to which he refers is a mixed-use housing, commercial and hotel proposal brought by Oyster Point Development, spreading across 81 acres of waterfront property. The developer hopes to break ground this fall.
Plans include 1,191 rental and for-sale residences spanning in size between studios and three-bedroom units, as well as about 1.5 million square feet of research and development space for biotechnology companies. South San Francisco officials are also weighing proposals for hotel designs to offer as many as 350 rooms, plus community gathering space and additional amenities.
The project is a revised version of a development first approved by South San Francisco officials in 2011, which lay stagnant for years prior to recently being purchased and rejuvenated last year. If built, it would mark the first batch of residential development in the area east of Highway 101 in South San Francisco.
Under terms of the agreement approved by the Harbor District, the developer and city officials are expected to establish a community facilities tax district to help finance $2.5 million in replacement and repairs to a marina fuel line and dock.
Brennan voted against the proposal due to concerns over the safety of the fuel line, which has been in a state of disrepair for years, and uncertainty over the financing plans for the fix.
“We know it is unsafe,” she said. “As a responsible agency, we can’t sit by and let an unsafe system be.”
Brennan said she believes the developer should have done more in the past to maintain the fuel system, and since it was not adequately addressed, the company should be solely responsible for the fix and replacement.
Recommended for you
“The taxpayers are going to be paying for this system which they should have fixed,” she said.
Brennan said she would have preferred commissioners postpone a vote on the proposal in favor of gathering more information, especially in regards to the project financing. A proposal she floated at the meeting attempting to push off the vote failed before commissioners ultimately approved the proposed agreement.
In regards to the concerns raised by his colleague, Mattusch flatly denied their merit and expressed confidence the terms of the deal would come to fruition.
“I disagree with everything at face value,” he said, adding the district will not be obligated to finance the infrastructure improvement.
“We have several funding mechanisms in place. The developer has promised a certain thing, the community facilities district will be providing certain things and that’s enough to fund the entire rebuilding of the fuel dock,” he said.
Under terms of the agreement, funding for initial fixes is expected to be allocated by 2020 and a final improvement payment should be paid six years later.
Mattusch said his certainty that terms of the agreement will be followed is fortified through an expectation that South San Francisco officials will work alongside Harbor District to see the work through.
“Both us and South San Francisco are moving in the right direction,” he said.
To that end, he said he considers the project a priority for the district as well as region and looks forward to its development.
“We get to do things that improve San Mateo County and South San Francisco,” he said. “It’s a feather in the cap of the Harbor District. Everything is beneficial around this entire proposal.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 105
(3) comments
The Oyster Point 20,000-gallon fuel system should be replaced as soon as possible to protect public safety and the safety of Harbor District employees. In May 2017, numerous hazardous conditions were reported including concerns about electrocution and water pollution.
Oyster Point Development declined to make repairs as required by their lease agreement with the Harbor District. Over the past decade Drakes Marine, the sub-lessee provided the developer with multiple estimates for repairs. The developer neglected to make the repairs. The lack of repairs and maintenance has resulted in a dangerous fuel system as noted in the May report.
On Aug. 16, 2017, the Harbor Commission voted 3-2 to put the public on the hook for a fuel system the developer should have been properly maintaining.
The EPA said that the 20,000-gallon underground single-walled tank system should be replaced with double-walled tanks. The two 10,000 gallon single-walled tanks at Oyster Point have a history of leaks.
To-date nothing has been repaired or replaced. The report recommends full replacement of the fuel system.
Highlights from the May 2017 Anchor QEA Condition Assessment Report:
Utilities - page 6
The existing utilities on the fuel dock include fuel lines, which were reviewed by our fuel system subconsultant in a separate section, domestic water, fire protection, wastewater pump-out, and electrical conduits. These utilities are various states of disrepair. The domestic water and fire protection systems are in replace condition, the wastewater pump-out system is in replace condition, and the electrical system is in worn condition.
Domestic water, wastewater, and fuel flex lines should always be kept above the water line, but this was not observed on the fuel dock. Non-submersible electrical cables and conduits also must be kept 12 inches above the water line. Many of these pipes, conduits, and cables are supported by nylon ropes or bungee cords tied to cantilevered timber boards nailed into the deck, as can be seen in Photographs 5 and 6. Several conduits and cables were observed to dip into the water, creating the potential for hazardous stray currents which can electrocute people and corrode metal boat components such as rudders, propellers, drive shafts, and even metal hulls.
Domestic water lines should never dip into the water to prevent the potential for contamination of the potable water supply. Fire protection lines, however, may be placed in the water, and if fire protection piping is PVC or HDPE plastic pipe, it is in fact required to be placed underwater to prevent it from melting in a fire. All fire protection piping above the water line is required to be made of metal such as stainless steel or copper. There was no indication that all the above water fire protection piping is metal pipe, except for the risers. Lastly, the wastewater pump-out line has been allowed to drop into the water in some locations. Although vacuum-style wastewater pump-out pipes are typically dry when not in use, they should be kept above the water to observe any leaks during operation.
Fuel System - page 9
However, there is no evidence of double-lined pipes or spill containment on the docks. In addition, the on-dock control panel/ emergency stop and land-to-dock transition piping are severely corroded and in otherwise decrepit condition. A timber frame and nylon ropes are supporting a portion of this transition, as shown in Photograph 7. There is no real transition to land, with pipes simply diving into the ground and simple sawhorse warning signs “protecting” this location. Fuel lines should transition in a vault at the shore. Overall, except for the tank fuel pumps and monitoring equipment, the fuel system is in replace condition.
Electrical - page 12
The critical utility issue which should be addressed immediately is submerged electrical wires and conduits.
Fuel System - page 13
The fuel system, except for the tank pumps and monitoring equipment, is not salvageable, nor are repairs anticipated to extend the remaining useful of the fuel system.
How many jobs will the 1.5M sf of R&D support? A standard rule of thumb is 300 sf per job which would be 5,000 jobs. Take this number and multiply by 2/3 to get the number of housing units that will be needed to house all these new employees (1.5 jobs per household) which = 3,333 units to maintain a realistic jobs / housing balance. I applaud the developer for proposing 1,191 units of housing, but it is still short of balance and will exacerbate the current shortage of housing on the Peninsula. The city should go back to the developer to negotiate a more balanced plan.
Wow, thank you Sabrina for stading up for the public taxpayer and the environment re: this privately owned & maintained creaky and potentially leaky fuel tank infrastructure liability. So all that's left to do now is hope everything turns out OK?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.