DOCSLIB.ORG

Resilience San Francisco

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. One approach to LINCOLN WAY Pacific 16TH ST building community resiliency is to begin the process of identifying vulnerabilities and 17TH ST 101 developing robust strategies that address climate-related risks and vulnerabilities. 7TH AVE 7TH MISSION ST Ocean AVE 19TH 280 3RD ST NORIEGA ST 3 Given the complex nature of these issues and the scale of potential impacts, many Neighborhood interrelated efforts are being conducted in the City to understand the severity and PORTOLA DR CLIPPER ST progression of climate change impacts, involve the people and communities that CESAR CHAVEZ ST resilience 1 Islais Creek could be potentially affected by sea level rise or flooding, and create ideas and TARAVAL ST actions to protect communities, the economy and the environment. These efforts are OAKDALE AVE EVANS AVE described inside this handout. BAY SHORE BLVD SUNSET BLVD SUNSET SLOAT BLVD India Basin INNES AVE SAN7 BRUNO AVE 8 9 10 SILVER AVE OCEAN AVE LAKE 3RD ST MERCED Hunters Point MANSELL ST Shipyard McLAREN GENEVA AVE PARK 101 280 Candlestick SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY Point ALIGNMENT AND COORDINATION / RELATED RESILIENCY & TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN SAN FRANCISCO Resiliency Projects Transportation Projects Islais Creek Adaptation Army Corps Flood Study Southern Waterfront Seawall Program San Francisco Sea Level BART Sea Level Rise 1 Strategy 2 3 Assessment 4 5 Rise Action Plan 6 Vulnerability Assessment The Southeast Mobility Adaptation The United States Army Corps of Engineers The Port is leading an effort in the southern The Port’s Seawall Program started in fall The city is conducting a vulnerability and BART will be conducting a regional sea level Strategy (SMAS) is a two-year community and Port of San Francisco have partnered to part of the Port’s jurisdiction to assess the 2017 and aims to create a more sustainable consequences assessment to identify where rise vulnerability assessment, funded by planning process in the Islais Creek area study flood risk along San Francisco’s east- vulnerabilities, identify the opportunities and and resilient waterfront. The Embarcadero and how sea level rise and coastal flooding the Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant that will develop actionable strategies ern shoreline. The study area is within the develop near, mid- and long-term adaptation Seawall supports over three miles of the will affect San Francisco’s public infrastruc- Program, over the next two years. The first strategies for the area. The purpose of the ture like the wastewater system and our phase of the project will focus on the BART/ that address sea level rise and coastal Port’s jurisdiction, from Fisherman’s Wharf in waterfront – from Fisherman’s Wharf to the north to Heron’s Head Park in the south. assessment is to fill any gaps in the Port, City Mission Creek – and supports key utility and parks and open spaces. This foundational SFMTA subway assets at the Embarcadero flood risk through a robust public The three year Study will identify challenges and community understanding of the risks transportation infrastructure, critical emer- assessment will help the city prioritize and station. The project is currently focused on engagement process. Building on the and recommend solutions to reduce cur- and opportunities. The Assessment will draw gency response and recovery areas on the develop adaptation strategies to minimize understanding where flood water will go if it Resilient by Design proposal and other rent and future flood risk and will produce from, and integrate with, a number of exist- Embarcadero and provides flood protection future flood risk. enters the shared subway system and what city and regional efforts, the SMAS will alternatives that will incorporate input from ing efforts, including Islais Creek Adaptation for downtown San Francisco. The Program’s subway assets will be impacted. This project develop a long-range vision for the USACE, Port, stakeholder, resource agencies Srategy, the Seawall Program, the USACE/ goals are to: reduce earthquake damage; PL RC PT MT PU ultimately aims to identify strategies that Islais Creek shoreline, asset-specific and the public for consideration for Federal Port of San Francisco Flood Protection Study, improve flood resilience; engage the com- sf-planning.org/sea-level-rise-action-plan can be implemented in the years ahead to solutions for public infrastructure, and a investment and implementation. the Citywide Sea Level Rise work. munity; and enhance the city and the Bay provide flood protection to the critical local prioritized funding and implementation and preserve historic resources. and regional subway system. PT AE PL PT PL strategy that increases the resilience of PT sfseawall.com/seawall-program BA resilientca.org/case-studies/ the community and provides improved bart-sea-level-rise-and-flooding/ transportation networks and new open space. Public Engagement and Timeline: The two-year planning project will begin in early 2019 and will conclude at the end of the 2020. Project Funding: Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant Program with funding from Senate Bill 1. ConnectSF Bayview Community- District 10 Mobility Study Southeast Muni Based Transportation Plan Expansion Core Team: Planning Department with 7 8 9 10 Lead and Supporting AGENCIES support from SFMTA and Port of San ConnectSF is the city’s long-range trans- The Bayview Community-Based The City is exploring strategies to keep The Southeast Muni Expansion, coupled with Francisco. portation planning program launched in Transportation Plan (BCBTP) is a community- District 10 safe and livable and to limit the near-term transit service improvements Army Corps of Engineers AE 2016 and managed by Planning, SFCTA, driven planning effort funded through a growth in car trips. New technologies can being made as part of the Muni Service Bay Area Rapid Transit BA PL PT MT AE and SFMTA. The program’s first task was to Caltrans Sustainable Planning Grant. During help, by supporting deployment of public Equity Strategy, will provide faster and more gather residents and stakeholders to answer this two-year planning process, SFMTA and private transportation services and frequent bus service to downtown San Countywide Transportation Agency CT sfplanning.org/project/islais the question: “What is the future of San will partner with residents and community opening up opportunities for community- Francisco and other destinations throughout SFMTA MT Francisco as a place to live, work, and play?” groups to identify transportation priorities based collaborations that can help enhance the City. The Southeast Muni Expansion A Vision for San Francisco was collabora- which reflect community values and support neighborhood access and improve public will be implemented in phases beginning in SF Planning PL a growing and resilient Bayview. The plan 2021, as the communities in southeastern tively developed by residents, community- health. The Transportation Authority is work- Port of San Francisco PT based organizations, and the program’s will create a list of local projects for imple- ing in collaboration with the community, the San Francisco grow, while helping to meet Futures Task Force. City staff will use the mentation that emphasize walking, biking, SFMTA, and developers to identify near- the travel needs of existing neighborhoods. SFPUC PU Vision to identify transportation projects and taking the bus, and improving access for term, non-infrastructure solutions that that The Southeast Muni Expansion will include SF Public Works PW policies that will help get San Francisco to transit-dependent groups like seniors and improve sustainable travel options for resi- neighbors, businesses and community orga- this Vision. residents of public housing. The BCBTP will dents and visitors alike. Our goal is for these nizations in shaping the Muni bus service Office of Resilience and Capital Planning RC include conceptual designs for transporta- improvements to happen in the near-term to improvements that will be implemented as PL MT CT tion improvements, a prioritized implemen- respond to transportation needs in the next development moves forward. connectsf.org tation plan, and a funding plan to ensure one to three years, as well as future demand. on-the-ground results for the community. MT sfmta.com/projects/ CT sfcta.org/ southeast-muni-expansion MT sfmta.com/projects/bayview- D10_mobility_management_study community-based-transportation-plan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sausalito's Vision for 2040
    The introductory chapter provides an overview of the General Plan, describing the purpose of the plan and its role for the City of Sausalito. The Introduction includes Sausalito’s Vision for 2040, the Authority and Purpose, Organization of the Sausalito General Plan, Implementation of the Plan, Public Participation in Creating the Plan, Sausalito’s History, and Future Trends and Assumptions. SAUSALITO’S VISION FOR 2040 VISION STATEMENT Sausalito is a thriving, safe, and friendly community that sustainably cultivates its natural beauty, history, and its arts and waterfront culture. Due to sea level rise and the continuing effects of climate change, the city seeks to bridge the compelling features and attributes of the city’s past, particularly its unique shoreline neighborhoods, with the environmental inevitabilities of its future. Sausalito embraces environmental stewardship and is dedicated to climate leadership while it strives to conserve the cultural, historic, artistic, business and neighborhood diversity and character that make up the Sausalito community. OVERALL COMMUNITY GOALS The General Plan Update addresses the new and many continuing issues confronting the city since the General Plan was adopted in 1995. The General Plan Update also responds to the many changing conditions of the region, county, and city since the beginning of the 21st century. The following eleven broad goals serve as the basis for more specific policies and implementation strategies. 1. Maintain Sausalito’s small-scale residential neighborhoods, recognizing their geographical, architectural, and cultural diversity, while supporting a range of housing options. 2. Recognize and perpetuate the defining characteristics of Sausalito, including its aesthetic beauty, scenic features, natural and built environment, its history, and its diverse culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland Coliseum Industrial Center 5800 Coliseum Way | Oakland, CA
    Premier Urban Logistics Location Oakland Coliseum Industrial Center 5800 Coliseum Way | Oakland, CA ±336,680 SF Warehouse For Lease Jason Ovadia Patrick Metzger Greg Matter Jason Cranston Robert Bisnette +1 510 285 5360 +1 510 285 5362 650 480 2220 [email protected] +1 510 661 4011 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] +1 650 480 2100 [email protected] Lic # 01742912 Lic # 01888895 Lic #01380731 Lic # 01253892 Lic # 01474433 Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. Real Estate License # 01856260 Unrivaled Access to Bay80 Area Urban Core 80 Vallejo Port of Benecia 80 Concord San Rafael Richmond Port of 101 Richmond 580 Walnut Creek Oakland 680 Port of Oakland Prologis Oakland Coliseum San Francisco Urban Logistics Center Port of San Francisco Oakland International Airport PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTS Hayward 580 Pleasanton San Francisco • Close proximity to Oakland Airport and International Airport Port of Oakland Fremont • Overweight accessible location San Mateo 880 • Great access to robust workforce 280 101 • Union Pacific Rail capabilities Driving distance Palo Alto • Heavy Power with Back Up Generator 3.5 mi Oakland International Airport 680 5.3 mi Port of Oakland San Jose • Divisible to ±168,340 SF International Airport • Available Q4 2020 16.2 mi SF Financial District San Jose 16.2 mi Port of San Francisco 27.5 mi SF International Airport 36.4 mi San Jose International Airport ±336,680 SF Current Building Configuration 80 Warehouse ±336,680 SF Office ±16,380 SF Site Size 9.93 acres Vallejo Column
    [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]
  • Park Report Part 1
    Alcatraz Island Golden Gate National Recreation Area Physical History PRE-EUROPEAN (Pre-1776) Before Europeans settled in San Francisco, the area was inhabited by Native American groups including the Miwok, in the area north of San Francisco Bay (today’s Marin County), and the Ohlone, in the area south of San Francisco Bay (today’s San Francisco peninsula). Then, as today, Alcatraz had a harsh environment –strong winds, fog, a lack of a fresh water source (other than rain or fog), rocky terrain –and there was only sparse vegetation, mainly grasses. These conditions were not conducive to living on the island. These groups may have used the island for a fishing station or they may have visited it to gather seabird eggs since the island did provide a suitable habitat for colonies of seabirds. However, the Miwok and Ohlone do not appear to have lived on Alcatraz or to have visibly altered its landscape, and no prehistoric archeological sites have been identified on the island. (Thomson 1979: 2, Delgado et al. 1991: 8, and Hart 1996: 4). SPANISH AND MEXICAN PERIOD (1776-1846) Early Spanish explorers into Alta California encountered the San Francisco Bay and its islands. (Jose Francisco Ortega saw the bay during his scouting for Gaspar de Portola’s 1769 expedition, and Pedro Fages described the three major islands –Angel, Alcatraz, and Yerba Buena –in his journal from the subsequent 1772 expedition.) However, the first Europeans to record their visit to Alcatraz were aboard the Spanish ship San Carlos, commanded by Juan Manuel de Ayala that sailed through the Golden Gate and anchored off Angel Island in August 1775.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of San Francisco Maritime Cargo and Warehouse Market Analysis
    PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME CARGO AND WAREHOUSE MARKET ANALYSIS January 5, 2009 FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Port of San Francisco Prepared by: CBRE Consulting, Inc. Martin Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 3 II. ASSESSEMENT OF EXISTING MARKETS............................................................................ 4 1 HISTORIC MARINE CARGO ACTIVITY AT WEST COAST PORTS............................................ 4 2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPETING BAY AREA PORTS ................................................................... 6 2.1 Port of Redwood City ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Port of Richmond .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Port of Stockton ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Port of Sacramento........................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Port of Benicia................................................................................................................................... 8 3 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
    [Show full text]
  • "Port of San Francisco Shoreside Power Project Press Release
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 Contact: Mayor’s Office of Communications, 415-554-6131 Renée Dunn Martin, Port of San Francisco, 415-274-0488 *** PRESS RELEASE *** MAYOR NEWSOM AND THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO INAUGURATE CRUISE SHIP USING SHORESIDE POWER San Francisco is first California city where cruise ships can plug in for clean power San Francisco, CA— Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Port of San Francisco today joined Princess Cruises and state and federal agency partners to officially inaugurate shoreside power at Pier 27, allowing Island Princess to shut down her engines and receive clean power from the City’s electrical grid. The Port of San Francisco became the first California port, and one of only a handful of ports in the world, to provide shoreside electrical power for cruise ships while at berth. “Once again we are demonstrating that doing right by the environment doesn’t come at the expense of jobs and economic growth,” said Mayor Newsom. “With shoreside power, we can welcome a growing number of cruise ships and the tourist dollars they bring to San Francisco while protecting the Bay and our local air quality.” Shoreside power results in zero air emissions while a ship is connected in port. This new system is not only the first in the state, but just the fourth in the world. The other cruise ports with shoreside power are Juneau (Alaska), Seattle (Washington), and Vancouver (Canada). The ports of Los Angeles and San Diego also plan to implement this system. Island Princess is operated by Princess Cruises, who developed the shore power technology in Juneau in 2001.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Bureau of Customs and Border Protection CBP Decision 19 CFR PART 101 USCBP–2006–0057 [CBP Dec
    Bureau of Customs and Border Protection CBP Decision 19 CFR PART 101 USCBP–2006–0057 [CBP Dec. 06–23] ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PORT OF ENTRY AT SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA; REALIGNMENT OF THE PORT LIMITS OF THE PORT OF ENTRY AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; Department of Home- land Security. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations pertaining to the field organization of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by establishing a new port of entry at Sacramento, California, and terminating the user fee status of Sacramento International Airport. In order to ac- commodate this new port of entry, this document realigns the port boundaries of the port of entry at San Francisco, California (San Francisco-Oakland), since these boundaries currently encompass area that is included within the new port of Sacramento. This change is part of CBP’s continuing program to more efficiently uti- lize its personnel, facilities, and resources to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Dore, Of- fice of Field Operations, 202-344-2776. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register (70 FR 52336) on September 2, 2005, CBP pro- posed to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) by establishing a new port of en- try at Sacramento, California. In the notice, CBP proposed to include 1 2 CUSTOMS BULLETIN AND DECISIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 39, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 in the port of Sacramento the Sacramento International Airport, cur- rently a user fee airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Pier 1 – San Francisco, CA 94111 Thursday, January 16, 2014, 11
    Port of San Francisco – Pier 1 – San Francisco, CA 94111 Thursday, January 16, 2014, 11:30am‐1:00pm Pier 1, Bayside Conference Rooms Meeting Summary Notes Attendees: Jon Allyn Metro Ports Shawn Bundy Metro Ports Joe Burgard Red & White Fleet Bill Butler Jerico Products John Cinderey SF Bar Pilots Peter Dailey Port of San Francisco David Gavrich SF Bay Rail Aaron Golbus Port of San Francisco Bobby Guillory ILWU Local 10 (retired) Carolyn Horgan Blue & Gold Fleet John Hummer U.S. Maritime Administration Ellen Johnck Ellen Joslin Johnck RPA Jinan Liu Port of San Francisco Denise Lum Port of San Francisco Jim Maloney Port of San Francisco Michael Nerney Port of San Francisco Roger Peters Commerce and Maritime Gerry Roybal Port of San Francisco Veronica Sanchez Masters, Mates & Pilots Rich Smith Westar Marine Services Dave Thomas SF Water Taxi Anita Yao Port of San Francisco 1. Welcome by MCAC Co‐chair, Ellen Johnck 2013 review: Piers 30‐32; Giants Mission Bay; Port’s 150th Anniversary; America’s Cup; Transportation Plan; SF Supervisors Sail‐In There have not been any recent meetings with the Mayor’s office on the Warriors project at Piers 30/32 (last was 2/22/2013). There will most likely be a ballot measure regarding the arena in November 2014. There have not been any recent meetings with the Giants regarding Seawall Lot 337 Giants Mission Bay project. The Port’s 150th Anniversary celebration began on April 24, 2013, and will continue through April 23, 2014. The Embarcadero banners will come down due to space and time limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Downtown San Francisco Expanding Downtown’S Capacity for Transit-Oriented Jobs
    THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO EXPANDING DOWNTOWN’S CAPACITY FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED JOBS SPUR REPORT Adopted by the SPUR Board of Directors on January 21, 2009 Released March 2009 The primary author of this report were Egon Terplan, Ellen Lou, Anthony Bruzzone, James Rogers, Brian Stokle, Jeff Tumlin and George Williams with assistance from Frank Fudem, Val Menotti, Michael Powell, Libby Seifel, Chi-Hsin Shao, John Sugrue and Jessica Zenk SPUR 654 Mission St., San Francisco, California 94105 www.spur.org SPUR | March 2009 INDEX Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 I. The Problem: Regional job sprawl and the decline of transit-served central business districts _ 6 II. The Solution: The best environmental and economic response for the region is to expand our dynamic, transit-served central business districts _______________________________________ 16 III. The Constraints: We are running out of capacity in downtown San Francisco to accommodate much new employment growth _______________________________________________________ 20 The Zoning Constraint: Downtown San Francisco is running out of zoned space for jobs. 20 The Transportation Constraint: Our regional transportation system — roads and trains — is nearing capacity at key points in our downtown. 29 IV. Recommendations: How to create the downtown of the future __________________________ 39 Land use and zoning recommendations 39 Transportation policy recommendations: Transit, bicycling and roadways 49 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 66 The Future of Downtown San Francisco 2 INTRODUCTION Since 1990, Bay Area residents have been driving nearly 50 million more miles each day. Regionally, transit ridership to work fell from a high of 11.4 percent in 1980 to around 9.4 percent in 2000.
    [Show full text]