DOCSLIB.ORG

Sewer System Improvement Program Bayside Drainage Basin Urban Watershed Characterization Final Draft Technical Memorandum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sewer System Improvement Program Bayside Drainage Basin Urban Watershed Characterization Final Draft Technical Memorandum SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BAYSIDE DRAINAGE BASIN URBAN WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Prepared for: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SSIP PMC Program Team 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Prepared by: Urban Watershed Assessment Team 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 94103 July 2013 GREY. GREEN. CLEAN. Form No. PI12-06 This page intentionally left blank Form No. PI12-06 GREY. GREEN. CLEAN. PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW: Reviewers listed in the table below have completed an internal quality review check and approval process that is consistent with procedures and directives previously identified by the PMC. The table below outlines the corresponding reviewers for each deliveerable document. Table 1: Identification of Technical and Administrative Reviewers Deliverable Bayside Drainage Basin Technical Administrative PCTA Reviewer Urban Watershed Characterization Reviewer Reviewer Subtask Subtask Complete Complete Complete FINAL DRAFT Karen Kubick x Kara Bakker x Dan Donahue x Rosey Jencks Scott Lowry John Roddy David Wood Don Walker Geoff Grant FINAL DRAFT Karen Kubick x Kara Bakker x Dan Donahue x Manfred Wong Lewis Harrison John Roddy Rosey Jencks Rachel Kraai Raphael Garcia Marty Dorward David Wood Quality Assurance and Quality Control Review Complete: David M. Wood - Task Order Manager SSIP PMC Page | iii SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Form No. PI12-06 GREY. GREEN. CLEAN. This page intentionally left blank SSIP PMC Page | v SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BAYSIDE DRAINAGE BASIN URBAN WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS CHARACTERIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Bayside Drainage Basin Characterization Summary .................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Background ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Report Organization .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Sewer System Improvement Program ............................................................. 1-3 1.3.1 Urban Watershed-Based Planning ........................................................ 1-6 1.3.2 Role of Urban Watershed Characterization .......................................... 1-7 1.3.3 Subsequent Phases of the Urban Watershed Assessments ............... 1-7 1.4 Summary of Bayside Drainage Basin Characteristics ................................... 1-12 1.4.1 North Shore ......................................................................................... 1-15 1.4.2 Channel ................................................................................................ 1-15 1.4.3 Islais Creek .......................................................................................... 1-16 1.4.4 Yosemite .............................................................................................. 1-16 1.4.5 Sunnydale ............................................................................................ 1-16 1.5 Summary of Bayside Drainage Basin Needs ................................................. 1-16 1.5.1 Level of Service-Specific Areas of Need ............................................ 1-19 2.0 Urban Watershed Characteristics ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Drainage Characteristics .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Surface Drainage .................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.2 Collection System ................................................................................ 2-12 2.2 Operational Characteristics ............................................................................ 2-32 2.2.1 Background .......................................................................................... 2-33 2.2.2 Impact of Sewer System Improvement Program on Operations ...... 2-33 2.3 Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characteristics .......................................... 2-34 2.3.1 Hydrologic Soil Groups ........................................................................ 2-34 2.3.2 Liquefaction ......................................................................................... 2-36 2.3.3 Maher Zone and Historical Fill Area ................................................... 2-36 2.3.4 Groundwater and Bedrock .................................................................. 2-36 2.3.5 City-Wide Soil Boring Database Analysis ........................................... 2-41 2.4 Street and Land Use Characteristics ............................................................. 2-42 2.4.1 Arterial Analysis ................................................................................... 2-43 2.4.2 Street Categories ................................................................................. 2-45 2.4.3 Residential Streets .............................................................................. 2-46 2.4.4 Commercial Streets ............................................................................. 2-47 2.4.5 Other Streets ....................................................................................... 2-48 2.5 Ecological Characterization ............................................................................ 2-50 2.5.1 Historical Ecology ................................................................................ 2-53 2.5.2 Remaining Historical Ecology ............................................................. 2-54 2.5.3 Landscape Ecology and Green Infrastructure ................................... 2-59 2.5.4 Benefits of Enhanced Ecosystems ..................................................... 2-61 2.5.5 Specific Areas of Interest for the Bayside Drainage Basin ............... 2-62 2.6 Socio-Demographic Characterization ............................................................ 2-64 2.6.1 Background .......................................................................................... 2-64 2.6.2 North Shore Urban Watershed ........................................................... 2-66 2.6.4 Channel Urban Watershed ................................................................. 2-76 SSIP PMC Page | vi SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BAYSIDE DRAINAGE BASIN URBAN WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.6.5 Neighborhood Areas ............................................................................ 2-76 2.6.6 Islais Creek Urban Watershed ............................................................ 2-79 2.6.7 Yosemite Urban Watershed ................................................................ 2-82 2.6.8 Sunnydale Urban Watershed .............................................................. 2-84 2.7 Stormwater and Wastewater Regulatory Framework ................................... 2-87 2.7.1 Background .......................................................................................... 2-87 2.7.2 Current Discharge Regulations .......................................................... 2-87 2.8 Planned Projects ............................................................................................. 2-89 2.8.1 SFPUC Projects .................................................................................... 2-90 2.8.2 Area, Neighborhood, Community, and Redevelopment Plans ......... 2-95 2.8.3 Streetscape Projects ......................................................................... 2-104 2.8.4 Recreation and Parks ........................................................................ 2-112 2.8.5 Schools ............................................................................................... 2-116 2.9 Urban Water Balance ................................................................................... 2-117 2.9.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 2-117 2.9.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 2-118 2.9.3 Source Data ....................................................................................... 2-120 2.9.4 Hydrologic Components .................................................................... 2-122 2.9.5 Municipal Water Use ......................................................................... 2-124 2.9.6 Total Municipal Water Use ................................................................ 2-125 2.9.7 Sanitary Flow ..................................................................................... 2-125 2.9.8 Treated Effluent Discharges ............................................................. 2-126 2.9.9 Results ............................................................................................... 2-129 2.9.10 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 2-133 3.0 Urban Watershed Challenges and Needs Analysis ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 Existing Wastewater Enterprise Challenges .................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Location-Specific Challenges ................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Needs Analysis Relative to Wastewater Enterprise Goals and Levels of Service .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.1 Provide a Compliant System .................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bay Fill in San Francisco: a History of Change
    SDMS DOCID# 1137835 BAY FILL IN SAN FRANCISCO: A HISTORY OF CHANGE A thesis submitted to the faculty of California State University, San Francisco in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Gerald Robert Dow Department of Geography July 1973 Permission is granted for the material in this thesis to be reproduced in part or whole for the purpose of education and/or research. It may not be edited, altered, or otherwise modified, except with the express permission of the author. - ii - - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Maps . vi INTRODUCTION . .1 CHAPTER I: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF SAN FRANCISCO’S TIDELANDS . .4 Definition of Tidelands . .5 Evolution of Tideland Ownership . .5 Federal Land . .5 State Land . .6 City Land . .6 Sale of State Owned Tidelands . .9 Tideland Grants to Railroads . 12 Settlement of Water Lot Claims . 13 San Francisco Loses Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 14 San Francisco Regains Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 15 The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Port of San Francisco . 18 CHAPTER II: YERBA BUENA COVE . 22 Introduction . 22 Yerba Buena, the Beginning of San Francisco . 22 Yerba Buena Cove in 1846 . 26 San Francisco’s First Waterfront . 26 Filling of Yerba Buena Cove Begins . 29 The Board of State Harbor Commissioners and the First Seawall . 33 The New Seawall . 37 The Northward Expansion of San Francisco’s Waterfront . 40 North Beach . 41 Fisherman’s Wharf . 43 Aquatic Park . 45 - iii - Pier 45 . 47 Fort Mason . 48 South Beach . 49 The Southward Extension of the Great Seawall .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
    State of California & The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial Page 1 of 32 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Potrero Point Historic District D1. Historic Name Potrero Point/Lower Potrero D2. Common Name: Central Waterfront *D3. Detailed Description (Discuss coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.): The Potrero Point Historic District (also referred to as the Central Waterfront) is located in the Potrero Hill district of San Francisco on the western side of San Francisco Bay in the City of San Francisco between Mission Creek on the north and Islais Creek to the south. The approximately 500-acre area is more precisely described as a roughly rectangular district bounded by Sixteenth Street to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, Islais Creek to the south, and U.S. Interstate 280 to the west. The area measures approximately 1.3 miles from north to south, and approximately 0.6 miles wide from east to west. (See Continuation Sheet, Pg. 2) *D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.): The Potrero Point (Central Waterfront) area is enclosed within a rectangle formed by the following streets and natural features: Beginning at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania and Sixteenth streets, the northern boundary of the area extends east along Sixteenth Street into San Francisco Bay. The boundary turns ninety degrees and heads south through the bay encompassing the entirety of Piers 70 and 80. At Islais Creek Channel, the boundary makes a ninety degree turn and heads west along the southern shore of the channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Resilience San Francisco
    PROJECT TIMELINES 2018 2019 2020 2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1. Islais Creek Adaptation Strategy 2. Army Corps Flood Study 3. Southern Waterfront Assessment 5. Seawall Program 4. San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan 6. BART SLR Vulnerabilty Assessment 7. ConnectSF 8. Bayview Community-Based Transportation Plan 9. District 10 Mobility Study Resiliency projects that are a key component 10. Southeast Muni Expansion of the Islais Creek Adaptation Strategy MARIN COUNTY ALCATRAZ Adaptation to GOLDEN GATE San Francisco TREASURE rising sea level BRIDGE ISLAND Bay Fisherman’s Wharf Crissy Field BAY ST Resilience San Francisco COLUMBUS AVE 101 80 LOMBARD ST A changing climate will have profound impacts on San Francisco’s communities PRESIDIO 0 Miles 1 BROADWAY and its shoreline. To minimize climate impacts, we need to simultaneously reduce 1 6 5 BAY BRIDGE greenhouse gas emissions while preparing for future climate impacts such as sea CALIFORNIA ST LINCOLN BLVD I Sustainable level rise and coastal flooding. VAN NESS AVE ARGUELLO BLVD and resilient GEARY BLVD 4TH ST 25TH AVE transportation Over the next several decades, sea level rise and coastal flood events are projected MARKET ST MASONIC AVE to increase in frequency and extent. Addressing this climate risk requires urgent China Basin action now and will ultimately help to build a more resilient city. FELL ST STANYAN ST FULTON ST OAK ST 4 2 Sea level rise poses a threat to San Francisco’s neighborhoods and communities, GOLDEN GATE PARK CASTRO ST critical shoreline infrastructure and the transportation system.
    [Show full text]
  • Islais Creek Reinterpreted: an Exploration of Restoration Designs in the Urbanized Context of San Francisco
    UC Berkeley Restoration of Rivers and Streams (LA 227) Title Islais Creek reinterpreted: An exploration of restoration designs in the urbanized context of San Francisco Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/679901bn Author Griffith, Lucas A Publication Date 2006-12-17 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California I S L A I S C R E E K R E I N T E R P R E T E D An Exploration of Restoration Design in the Urbanized Context of San Francisco By Lucas A. Griffith December 17, 2006 Fall 2006 LA 227 Restoration of Rivers and Streams ISLAIS CREEK REINTERPRETED An Exploration of Restoration Design in the Urbanized Context of San Francisco Abstract In my initial inquiry into the environmental history of the Alemany Farmers’ Market in San Francisco, I learnt of a creek – Islais Creek, the largest watershed in the city. I measured and analyzed an 1869 U.S. Coast Survey to establish a representative baseline for the historical character of Islais Creek. Historically water accumulated on the shallow soils of the San Bruno Mountains and flowed into Islais Creek I used additional maps and surveys from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to document the cultural settlement of the watershed and further discuss land use impacts on the creek. For the past one-hundred and fifty years urban expansion and development have severely altered the original character of the creek and disallowed natural fluvial dynamics to persist. Currently the creek serves as the infrastructural backbone to a combined sewer system located underground in concrete pipes and culverts.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Bayview Hunters Point Context Statement
    BAYVIEW-HUNTERS POINT AREA B SURVEY TOWN CENTER ACTIVITY NODE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL PREPARED BY KELLEY & VERPLANCK FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 11, 2010 KELLEY & VERPLANCK HISTORICAL RESOURCES CONSULTING 2912 DIAMOND STREET #330, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 415.337.5824 // WWW.KVPCONSULTING.COM Historic Context Statement Bayview-Hunters Point: Area B Survey San Francisco, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 A. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................... 3 B. DEFINITION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ................................................................................... 4 C. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND PERIODS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................... 6 II. METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 11 III. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS .................................................... 14 A. HERE TODAY .................................................................................................................. 14 B. 1976 CITYWIDE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ........................................................................... 14 C. SAN FRANCISCO ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ....................................................................... 15 D. ARTICLE 10 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE
    [Show full text]
  • Showplace Square, Potrero Hill and Central Waterfront
    materials from warehouses and manufacturing facilities to and Showplace Square, from the piers. However, after World War II and as port facilities changed worldwide, the Port of San Francisco became Potrero Hill and less competitive and maritime activity declined substantially. Central Waterfront Since the renovation of the warehouses to provide furniture showroom space, Showplace Square has provided space for a Showplace Square, Potrero Hill and the Central Waterfront are well-defined cluster of furniture makers, designers and contrac- grouped into one district for the purpose of this report. However, tors. The current land use in the area remains predominantly each area is a distinct neighborhood characterized by very PDR. (Figure 6.3.5) different uses and development pressures. Each neighborhood has a distinct scale, population and types of business. Addition- Until the 1970s, Jackson Square, a historic district just north of ally, the neighborhoods are going through separate planning the downtown, was the primary location for the City's furniture processes at this time. Central Waterfront is currently in the showrooms. Many of these businesses were housed in historic Better Neighborhoods 2002 planning process. It is being consid- structures with small footprints and limited net floor area. As the ered with Showplace Square and Potrero Hill in this report in Jackson Square commercial vacancy rates dropped and rents order to provide a comprehensive picture of the entire Commu- nity Plan Area. The South of Market and Mission Bay bound these neighbor- L A 0 N 7 T G H T O hoods on the North and Northeast, San Francisco Bay bounds N N A them on the East, Islais Creek and the Bayshore bound them on N 0 N 8 A T R H B the South and the Mission District bounds them on the West.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey Summary Report and Draft Context Statement
    Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey San Francisco Planning Department October 2000–September 2001, Page 1 Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey Summary Report and Draft Context Statement Figure 1: View from Jones and California Streets, looking toward Mission Bay, c. 1867. The activity which is the subject of this Cultural Resources Survey has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. October 2000 – October 2001 Prepared by: San Francisco Planning Department Acknowledging the contributions of: Central Waterfront Survey Advisory Committee San Francisco Architectural Heritage Dogpatch Neighborhood Association Page and Turnbull, Architects Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey San Francisco Planning Department October 2000–September 2001, Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. Planning Commission Anita Theoharis, President William Fay, Vice-President Roslyn Baltimore Hector Chinchilla Cynthia Joe Myrna Lim Jim Salinas, Sr. Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Tim Kelley, President Suheil Shatara, Vice-President Ina Dearman Paul Finwall Nancy Ho-Belli
    [Show full text]
  • Islais Creek Adaptation Strategy Army Corps Flood Study Public Meeting 1
    Photo: Lyrinda Snyderman PUBLIC MEETING 1 ISLAIS CREEK ADAPTATION STRATEGY ARMY CORPS FLOOD STUDY Thursday March 14, 2019 Bayview Opera House ISLAIS CREEK BAYVIEW COMMUNITY WATERFRONT RESILIENCE THURSDAY MARCH 14 2019 MEETING AGENDA 1 Opening Remarks and Welcome 2 Climate Hazards & Citywide Resilience 3 Army Corps Flood Study 4 Islais Creek Adaptation Strategy 5 Workshop Exercise 6 Next Steps ISLAIS CREEK BAYVIEW COMMUNITY WATERFRONT RESILIENCE THURSDAY MARCH 14 2019 TONIGHT’S OBJECTIVES COMMUNITY MEETING 1 INFORMATION PARTICIPATION DISCUSSION Learn about the Army Engagement exercise to Share outcomes of engagement Corps Flood Study, Islais better understand what exercise and what it means for Creek Adaptation Strategy, is important to Bayview equity, environment, economy, and related resilience community community, City and regional projects and efforts issues, priorities, and opportunities ISLAIS CREEK BAYVIEW COMMUNITY WATERFRONT RESILIENCE THURSDAY MARCH 14 2019 FLOOD HAZARD Increasing flood risks San Francisco faces increasing from sea level rise (SLR) flood risk. Parts of the shoreline currently flood. Up to 3 feet by 2050 Up to 6–10 feet by 2100 ISLAIS CREEK BAYVIEW COMMUNITY WATERFRONT RESILIENCE THURSDAY MARCH 14 2019 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD 72% likelihood San Andreas The likelihood of a Historically of a major & Hayward major earthquake is high quiet period earthquake by Faults are and the consequences are since 1906 significant 2043 highest risk ISLAIS CREEK BAYVIEW COMMUNITY WATERFRONT RESILIENCE THURSDAY MARCH 14 2019 CITYWIDE
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds
    Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds Suggested Citation: Crist, P.J., S. Veloz, J. Wood, R. White, M. Chesnutt, C. Scott, P. Cutter, and G. Dobson. Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds. 2019. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER: This report represents a Regional Coastal Resilience Assessment that can be used to identify places on the landscape for resilience-building efforts and conservation actions through understanding coastal flood threats, the exposure of populations and infrastructure have to those threats, and the presence of suitable fish and wildlife habitat. As with all remotely sensed or publicly available data, all features should be verified with a site visit, as the locations of suitable landscapes or areas containing flood hazards and community assets are approximate. The data, maps, and analysis provided should be used only as a screening-level resource to support management decisions. This report should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for permitting or other legal purposes. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s partners. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or its funding sources. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION DISCLAIMER: The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of NOAA or the Department of Commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Out-Of-County Major Assets
    Appendix B Out-of-County Major Assets The following section highlights the major out-of-county major assets that are owned, managed, or relied on by the City and County of San Francisco. These facilities include the San Francisco International Airport1; County Jail #5-San Bruno Complex; facilities managed by the Parks and Recreation Department; a mental health facility owned by the Department of Public Health; wastewater treatment plants owned by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; and the numerous infrastructure components that facilitate the operation of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. A complete vulnerability analysis for the out-of-county areas where these facilities and infrastructure are located was beyond the time and resources of the planning team for this year’s assessment. However, the team is committed to completing the integration of vulnerability-related information for the out-of-county major assets during the implementation process for this plan as well as in subsequent plan updates. 1 Analyzed at length in the Vulnerability and Consequences Profile found in Appendix A. TABLE B-1 OUT-OF-COUNTY MAJOR ASSETS Dept. Facility Type Facility Name City County DPH Mental Health Center Redwood Center Redwood City San Mateo Service, Repair, And Towed Cars And MTA Storage Signal Shop Daly City San Mateo Other Recreational RPD Building Camp Mather Groveland Tuolomne Other Recreational RPD Building Polo Fields Daly City San Mateo Other Recreational Sharp Park RPD Building Clubhouse Pacifica San Mateo Aircraft Operator American Airlines SFO Support Cargo Unincorporated Area San Mateo Department Operations Airport-San SFO Center Francisco (SFO) Unincorporated Area San Mateo Aircraft Operator SFO Support Japan Airlines Cargo Unincorporated Area San Mateo Aircraft Operator Japan Airlines Cargo SFO Support Shop Building Unincorporated Area San Mateo Aircraft Operator N.
    [Show full text]
  • Islais Creek
    1 San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Site Description for Islais Creek Location, Ownership, and Management: Islais Creek Park is a small park with a gravel beach and high freeboard dock, located on the corner of 3rd Street and Arthur Avenue in southern San Francisco. The site is managed by the Port of San Francisco, under the stewardship of Kayaks Unlimited. The dock is owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Contact Name: Beaupre, David Contact Phone: (415) 274-0539 Contact E-mail: [email protected] Boat ramp and dock Gravel beach launch Islais Creek Park Facility Description: Islais Creek Park provides access to the creek and San Francisco Bay for small non-motorized boats with a high freeboard dock, gravel beach, and boat storage. The park also contains benches and picnic tables, pathways, trash/recycling receptacles, art sculptures, educational signs, and native landscaping. There are 18 public parking spaces located along Arthur Avenue, including two ADA spaces. Kayaks Unlimited act as park stewards in exchange for space for their boat storage area in the western portion of the park. Kayaks Unlimited provide public kayak storage for a nominal annual fee and coordinate regular outings for members and community groups, including disadvantaged youth. The Dragon Boat Training Center also store outrigger canoes here for youth training programs. The site is used primarily by kayakers and outrigger canoes. Most kayakers and outrigger canoes launch from the gravel beach. The dock gangway has a gate and sharp turns that can make carrying boats difficult; however, the dock is frequently used for crew changes during outrigger training.
    [Show full text]