72 Townsend Residential Project PDEIR

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

72 Townsend Residential Project PDEIR San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 72 TOWNSEND STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER12.15.05 State Clearinghouse No. 2006012057 EIR Publication Date: April 19, 2006 EIR Public Hearing Date: May 16, 2006 EIR Public Comment Period: April 19, 2006 – June 5, 2006 Written comments on this document should be sent to: Stanley Muraoka, Project Manager San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 1 South Van Ness Avenue, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94103 April 19, 2006 72 Townsend Street i Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 72 Townsend Street Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page I. Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1 C. Main Environmental Effects...................................................................................................... 2 D. Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................. 8 E. Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented........................................................... 14 F. Alternatives to the Proposed Project........................................................................................ 14 G. Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved..................................................................... 18 II. Project Description.......................................................................................................................... 21 A. Project Sponsor's Objectives ................................................................................................... 21 B. Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 21 C. Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 23 D. Project Approval Requirements............................................................................................... 30 III. Environmental Setting and Impacts............................................................................................ 31 A. Historical Resources................................................................................................................ 32 B. Land Use, Zoning, and Plan Consistency................................................................................ 50 C. Transportation.......................................................................................................................... 62 D. Growth Inducement ................................................................................................................. 81 E. Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved..................................................................... 82 IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project........................................................................... 83 V. Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented........................................................ 89 VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project .......................................................................................... 91 A. Alternative A: No Project Alternative .................................................................................... 92 B. Alternative B: Preservation Alternative.................................................................................. 93 C. Alternative C: Reduced Alternative........................................................................................ 95 D. Environmentally Superior Alternative..................................................................................... 96 VII. Draft EIR Distribution List ........................................................................................................... 97 April 19, 2006 72 Townsend Street ii Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VIII. EIR Authors, Project Sponsor’s Team, and Persons Consulted ....................................... 103 IX. Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 105 A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study B. Intersection Level of Service Designations List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Project Location....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan ................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3 Proposed Podium Level Floor Plan ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 4 Proposed Residential Floor Plan.............................................................................................. 26 Figure 5 Proposed Project Elevation...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 6 Proposed Project Sections ....................................................................................................... 28 Figure 7 Transportation Study Area....................................................................................................... 63 Figure 8 Transit Network....................................................................................................................... 69 List of Tables Table 1 San Francisco General Plan Street Designations..................................................................... 64 Table 2 Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions – Weekday P.M. Peak Hour...................................................................... 67 Table 3 Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) Existing and 2025 Cumulative Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour ......................................................................................................... 79 April 19, 2006 72 Townsend Street iii Draft Environmental Impact Report I. SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the proposed redevelopment of the existing single-story warehouse building at 64-72 Townsend Street, between Second and Colin P. Kelly Jr. Streets, into a nine-story, 99-foot-high, approximately 147,320-gross-square-foot (“gsf”) building providing 74 dwelling units and 74 above-grade parking spaces. The new project site address will be 72 Townsend Street. On the basis of the Initial Study, dated January 13, 2006, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) determined that an EIR is required. (See Appendix A, Notice of Preparation/Initial Study.) This EIR is intended to provide information on the environmental effects of the proposed 72 Townsend Street project to allow the Agency to make an informed decision on the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is in the northeast quadrant of San Francisco, in an area known as South Beach. The rectangular project site is on the west side of the City block bounded by Townsend, Colin P. Kelly Jr., Brannan, and Second Streets. The project site is located at 64-72 Townsend Street, on Assessor's Block 3789, Lot 3. The 29,098-square-foot site (approximately 0.67 acre) currently contains the 31- foot-tall, single-story Hooper’s South End Grain Warehouse building (“Hooper’s Warehouse”) that was constructed in 1874 and survived the 1906 earthquake and fire that destroyed most of the area immediately north of the site. The existing building contains approximately 28,175 gross square feet and is currently vacant. The Hooper’s Warehouse building is listed in local and state surveys of buildings that could be considered historic resources: the State Office of Historic Preservation (“OHP”) Status Code 2S2 indicates that the building has been found eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic April 19, 2006 72 Townsend Street 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report I. SUMMARY Places (“National Register”) and has already been listed in the California Register of Historic Resources (“California Register”); the building is listed in Splendid Extended (the Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage's extended survey of Downtown San Francisco); and the building is recognized as a Contributory Building to the South End Historic District. The project sponsor, Lambert Development LLC, proposes to retain the existing historic warehouse building occupying the entire site, except for the roof, and to construct seven residential stories on top of the existing building, creating a nine-story building. The first two levels (in the shell of the existing building) would contain two levels of above-grade parking with 74 spaces, as well as 5,000 square feet of ground-floor neighborhood-serving retail space. The upper seven floors would contain 37 one-bedroom units and 37 two-bedroom units for a total of 74 units. Vehicular access to the parking garage would be on Colin P.
Recommended publications
  • H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
    IV. Environmental Setting and Impacts H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Environmental Setting The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department maintains more than 200 parks, playgrounds, and open spaces throughout the City. The City’s park system also includes 15 recreation centers, nine swimming pools, five golf courses as well as tennis courts, ball diamonds, athletic fields and basketball courts. The Recreation and Park Department manages the Marina Yacht Harbor, Candlestick (Monster) Park, the San Francisco Zoo, and the Lake Merced Complex. In total, the Department currently owns and manages roughly 3,380 acres of parkland and open space. Together with other city agencies and state and federal open space properties within the city, about 6,360 acres of recreational resources (a variety of parks, walkways, landscaped areas, recreational facilities, playing fields and unmaintained open areas) serve San Francisco.172 San Franciscans also benefit from the Bay Area regional open spaces system. Regional resources include public open spaces managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the National Park Service in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties as well as state park and recreation areas throughout. In addition, thousands of acres of watershed and agricultural lands are preserved as open spaces by water and utility districts or in private ownership. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
    2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 McLaren Bike Park Opening Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager, Recreation and Parks 415‐581‐2554, [email protected] Ananda Hirsch, Capital Manager, Port of San Francisco 415‐274‐0442, [email protected] 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Program Budget Project Revenues 2 Project Expenditures 4 Project Schedules 6 Project Status Summaries 8 Citywide Programs 2930 Citywide Parks 3334 Executive Summary San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Bond Program Budget $M Neighborhood Parks In November 2012, 71.6% of voters approved Proposition B for a Angelo J. Rossi Playground 8.2 $195 million General Obligation Bond, known as the 2012 San Balboa Park 7 Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond (the “bond”). Garfield Square 11 George Chri s topher Playground 2.8 This funding will continue a decade of investment in the aging Gilman Playground 1.8 infrastructure of our park system. Specifically, the bond Glen Ca nyon Park 12 allocates: Hyde & Turk Mini Park 1 Joe DiMaggio Playground 5.5 Margaret S. Hayward Playground 14 $99 million for Neighborhood Parks, selected based on Moscone Recreation Center 1.5 community feedback, their physical condition, the variety of Mountain Lake Park 2 amenities offered,
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Table S1: Developed Sites Comprising the 1998 Baseline and Subsequent Changes Last Updated: 3/31/2015
    Supplemental Table S1: Developed Sites Comprising the 1998 Baseline and Subsequent Changes Last Updated: 3/31/2015 Table S1. Developed sites (name and type) comprising the 1998 baseline and subsequent changes per Bear Management Subunit inside the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (Developed sites that are new, removed, or in which capacity of human-use has been modified since 1998 are highlighted and italicized). Bear Management Admin Name and type of developed sites subunit Unit Developed Campgrounds: Cave Falls. Trailheads: Coyote Meadows, Hominy Peak, S. Boone Creek, Fish Lake, Cascade Creek. Major Developed Sites: Loll Scout Camp, Idaho Youth Services Camp. Administrative or Maintenance Sites: Squirrel Meadows Guard Station/Cabin, Porcupine Guard Station, Badger Creek Seismograph Site, and Squirrel Meadows CTNF GS/WY Game & Fish Cabin. Other Developed Sites: Grassy Lake Dam, Tillery Lake Dam, Indian Lake Dam, Bergman Res. Dam, Loon Lake Disperse sites, Horseshoe Lake Disperse sites, Porcupine Creek Disperse sites, Gravel Pit/Target Range, Boone Creek Disperse Sites, Tillery Lake O&G Camp, Calf Creek O&G Camp, Bergman O&G Camp, Granite Creek Cow Camp, Poacher’s TH, Indian Meadows TH, McRenolds Res. TH/Wildlife Viewing Area/Dam. Bechler/Teton #1 Trailheads: 9K1 and Cave Falls. Administrative or Maintenance Sites: South Entrance and Bechler Ranger Stations. YNP Other Developed Sites: Union Falls and Snake River picnic areas. Developed Campgrounds: Grassy Lake Road campsites (8 individual car camping sites). Trailheads: Glade Creek, Lower Berry Creek, Flagg Canyon. Major Developed Sites: Flagg Ranch (lodge, cabins and Headwater Campground with camper cabins, remote cistern and sewage treatment plant sites). Administrative or Maintenance Sites: Flagg Ranch Ranger GTNP Station, Flagg Ranch employee housing, Flagg Ranch maintenance yard.
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Park News Spring 2014
    SPRING 2014 VOLUME 32, NO. 1 Muni Reworks 35-Eureka Line New Playground Comes Alive Reroute Plan he San Francisco Municipal Transportaion Agency appears T ready to back off its controver- sial rerouting plan to run the 35-Eureka by bus along Diamond Zachary Street and eliminate Clark direct bus service to another portion of Glen Park altogether, after neighbors rallied to stop the proposed change. Muni’s original proposal, unveiled last winter, called for eliminating the 35-Eureka’s current loop along Moffitt, Bemis and Addison streets and extend the route south along Diamond Street to serve the Glen Park BART station. The 35-Eureka proposal is part of the San Francisco Municipal Transpor- tation Agency’s Transit Effectiveness Project, which aims make the public transit system more efficient, reliable, safe and comfortable for its riders, in part by overhauling routes. The goal behind the 35-Eureka Glen Park children and parents enjoy the playground during opening week. Photo by Liz Mangelsdorf change is to provide a direct Muni link between the Castro and Noe Val- ids being kids, they would not draw was the canyon. Now, it feels like ley neighborhoods and the Glen Park wait for the official inaugura- the playground is a destination, too.” BART station. K tion of the renovated Glen Can- The $5.8 million Glen Canyon Park While many residents are in favor yon Park Playground. They poured in playground improvements were funded of connecting the bus to BART, there before the speeches were over, before by the voter-backed 2008 Clean and was fierce opposition to the Diamond by the ribbon was cut.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • File No. 131042 Amended in Board 11/5/13 Resolution No
    AMENDED IN BOARD 11/5/13 FILE NO. 131042 RESOLUTION NO. 391-13 1 [Park, Recreation, and Open Space Advisory Committee - Membership List] 2 3 Resolution approving and modifying the Recreation and Park Commission's list of 4 recommended organizations for membership in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space 5 Advisory Committee. 6 7 WHEREAS, San Francisco Park Code, Article 13, Section 13.01, established the Park, 8 Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee. That Ordinance provides that the 9 Recreation and Park Commission shall prepare, and the Board of Supervisors shall approve 1O or modify, a list of organizations qualified to nominate individuals for Park, Recreation and 11 Open Space Advisory Committee membership; now, therefore, be it 12 RESOLVED, That the list of recommended organizations qualified to nominate 13 individuals for Park Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee membership are: 14 California Native Plant Society- Verba Buena Chapter, Friends of Duboce Park, Friends of 15 Mountain Lake Park, Friends of Recreation and Parks, Golden Gate Audubon Society - San 16 Francisco Conservation Committee, People Organizing to Demand Environmental Rights, 17 Proposition E Implementation Committee, San Francisco Beautiful, Neighborhood Park 18 Council, Committee for Better Parks and Recreation in Chinatown, San Francisco Friends of 19 the Urban Forest, San Francisco Group of the Sierra Club, San Francisco League of 20 Conservation Voters, San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners, San Francisco Tomorrow, 21 Save the Redwoods League,
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Capital Report October 2018
    San Francisco Recreation and Parks Capital & Planning Division Monthly Report September 30, 2018 Toks Ajike Director of Planning and Capital Management Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager The City and County of San Francisco launched the PeopleSoft financial and procurement system on July 3, 2017. This new financial system replaces the over 20-year old FAMIS system and completely changes the way the department processes and reports on financial transactions and procurement. As such, there have been some changes in the standard monthly capital report. This report contains the following: Active project balances and non-reconciled closed projects Unlike previous monthly reports, this report does not show FY 2018-19 actuals due to changes in the People Soft BI reporting syastem. The Department hopes to have this data in time for the November 2018 monthly report. Recreation and Parks Monthly Capital Report ‐ September 30, 2018 Project Description Budget Actuals Encumbered Balance PW Mansell St Strtscp 1,718,517.08 1,668,345.86 3,777.25 46,393.97 PW TGHill Rockslide Rsp 3,111.05 2,526.45 0.00 584.60 RP 11th & Natoma Acquistion 9,866,104.26 9,830,256.41 0.00 35,847.85 RP 11th Street And Natoma Park 210,000.00 9.30 9,620.00 200,370.70 RP 1268p‐marina Harbor Bioswal 780,177.00 56,377.81 0.00 723,799.19 RP 1290P‐Shoreview Park 3,932.00 53,183.82 0.00 ‐49,251.82 RP 1291P‐Ggp Senior Center 48,538.16 27,875.12 13,051.20 7,611.84 RP 17th & Folsom Park Acq 3,190.00 0.00 0.00 3,190.00 RP 17Th And Folsom 4,976,560.11 4,921,987.49 88,978.69
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan Environmental Assessment
    1. Introduction The Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan and Environmental Assessment is a cooperative effort between the Presidio Trust (Trust), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Golden Gate National Parks Association (GGNPA). The Presidio Trust is a wholly- owned federal government corporation whose purposes are to preserve and enhance the Presidio as a national park, while at the same time ensuring that the Presidio becomes financially self-sufficient by 2013. The Trust assumed administrative jurisdiction over 80 percent of the Presidio on July 1, 1998, and the NPS retains jurisdiction over the coastal areas. The Trust is managed by a seven-person Board of Directors, on which a Department of Interior representative serves. NPS, in cooperation with the Trust, provides visitor services and interpretive and educational programs throughout the Presidio. The Trust is lead agency for environmental review and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). GGNPA is administering project funds and coordinating phase one of the project. The San Francisco International Airport has provided $500,000 to fund the first phase of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan under the terms and conditions outlined within the Cooperative Agreement for the Restoration of Mountain Lake, 24 July 1998. The overall goal of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan is to improve the health of the lake and adjacent shoreline and terrestrial environments within the 14.25-acre Project Area. This document analyzes three site plan alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) and a no action alternative. It is a project-level EA that is based upon the Presidio Trust Act and the 1994 General Management Plan Amendment for the Presidio of San Francisco (GMPA) prepared by the NPS, a planning document that provides guidelines regarding the management, use, and development of the Presidio.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-‐1 Historic Resources Evaluation
    Appendix 3-1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION SEAWALL LOT 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project San Francisco, California April 11, 2016 Prepared by San Francisco, California Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall Lot 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 3 IV. Property Description ................................................................................................... ….....6 V. Historical Context ....................................................................................................... ….....24 VI. Determination of Eligibility.................................................................................... ……....44 VII. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Standards ............................. 45 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58 IX. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 59 April 11, 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Things to Do in San Francisco*
    100 Things to Do in San Francisco* Explore Your New Campus & City MORNING 1. Wake up early and watch the sunrise from the top of Bernal Hill. (Bernal Heights) 2. Uncover antique treasures and designer deals at the Treasure Island Flea Market. (Treasure Island) 3. Go trail running in Glen Canyon Park. (Glen Park) 4. Swim in Aquatic Park. (Fisherman's Wharf) 5. Take visitors to Fort Point at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge, where Kim Novak attempted suicide in Hitchcock's Vertigo. (Marina) 6. Get Zen on Sundays with free yoga classes in Dolores Park. (Dolores Park) 7. Bring Your Own Big Wheel on Easter Sunday. (Potrero Hill) 8. Play tennis at the Alice Marble tennis courts. (Russian Hill) 9. Sip a cappuccino on the sidewalk while the cable car cruises by at Nook. (Nob Hill) 10. Take in the views from seldom-visited Ina Coolbrith Park and listen to the sounds of North Beach below. (Nob Hill) 11. Brave the line at the Swan Oyster Depot for fresh seafood. (Nob Hill) *Adapted from 7x7.com 12. Drive down one of the steepest streets in town - either 22nd between Vicksburg and Church (Noe Valley) or Filbert between Leavenworth and Hyde (Russian Hill). 13. Nosh on some goodies at Noe Valley Bakery then shop along 24th Street. (Noe Valley) 14. Play a round of 9 or 18 at the Presidio Golf Course. (Presidio) 15. Hike around Angel Island in spring when the wildflowers are blooming. 16. Dress up in a crazy costume and run or walk Bay to Breakers.
    [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]
  • 2012 Park Bond Funds $5 Million in Conservation Measures
    2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 McLaren Bike Park Opening Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager, Recreation and Parks 415‐581‐2554, [email protected] Ananda Hirsch, Capital Manager, Port of San Francisco 415‐274‐0442, [email protected] 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Program Budget Project Revenues 2 Project Expenditures 4 Project Schedules 6 Project Status Summaries 8 Citywide Programs 30 Citywide Parks 34 Executive Summary San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Bond Program Budget $M Neighborhood Parks In November 2012, 71.6% of voters approved Proposition B for a Angelo J. Rossi Playground 8.2 $195 million General Obligation Bond, known as the 2012 San Balboa Park 7 Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond (the “bond”). Garfield Square 11 George Chri s topher Playground 2.8 This funding will continue a decade of investment in the aging Gilman Playground 1.8 infrastructure of our park system. Specifically, the bond Glen Ca nyon Park 12 allocates: Hyde & Turk Mini Park 1 Joe DiMaggio Playground 5.5 Margaret S. Hayward Playground 14 $99 million for Neighborhood Parks, selected based on Moscone Recreation Center 1.5 community feedback, their physical condition, the variety of Mountain Lake Park 2 amenities offered,
    [Show full text]