DOCSLIB.ORG

Blue Greenway Planning and Design Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blue Greenway Planning and Design Guidelines blue greenway Planning and Design Guidelines Draft for Community Review May 2010 Prepared by: The Port of San Francisco & The San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Landscape Architecture existing conditions opportunities constraints best practices Table of Contents Introduction 1.1 Planning Context 2.1 Existing Conditions, opportunities, and Constraints 3.1 Best Practices 4.1 Next Steps 5.1 References & Appendicies A.1 - B.5 a y i s c o B a n c F r n a S T U N N EL AV E L A N A A W A Y E X E C U T H I V A E R P A N R E K Y B L W V D A Y 32 E X C E LE CONTE AVE L KEY AVE S BA I JAMESTOWN AVE Y O Y S Y H P O X R R E E BL T INGERSON AVE N VD I O P S AVE R HOLLISTER AVE L E AU T P N U H GILMAN AVE Plan to Reconfigure H FITZGERALD AVE 1 W Candlestick Recreation 0 Y 1 Area & Open Spaces EGBERT AVE CARROLL ST BANCROFT AVE ARMSTRONG AVE YOSEMITE AVE VE S A IAM ILL S 31 I W L R E WALLACE AVE V VAN DYKE AVE A E V UNDERWOOD AVE THOMAS AVE R A E L I O SHAFTER AVE U 6 J ST J T S E H G W N I REVERE AVE R N A L A H N VE I 30 G AW F EI K I A R E K F N L I T E T G QUESADA AVE R L H H S ST S S D S S ST H A M ST M R T T S N A H P N W E PALOU AVE T A E S N A L PALOU AVE E 0 H U S P L A H T S T Exhibit 1 S OAKDALE AVE 1 W 0 Y L EN M B S I 1 T ST S Blue Greenwa T Blue Greenway Open Space System Map D A R 3RD ST CRISP D NEWCOMB AVE L H Y E H ST U L SSE T V S MCKINNON AVE M Y C ST i O I le C 0 H E OOD AVE s R KIRKW .2 AN W MO E 5 S KIRKWOO VE LA SALLE AVE R T D A R E L F C L D R O ST O T I L ED N JERROLD AVE O N E H A A L N A M O L E P N A E V 26 A S E N N U I N L L R A E P S I E I - D E I M 2 S T S F INNES AVE O T S M 8 T S T I H 0 N Z S I D T O S A H D E V A HUDSON AVE E 0 V R ER 27 L T E . N 5 P E 28 A O GALVEZ AVE A VE IN V T y Design Standard E 25 R D FAIRFAX AVE LOCKWOOD ST EVANS AVE M J EV E DAVID A I 29 24 SON AVE NS N S AVE N M I A S N R I G N T S I S O T 23 S 19 N 21 17 20 PO T R C ER CARGO WAY E S O A R AVE C 18 H A VE V E R Z R M O T S H KA O N D N T E S S AS T ISL 2 6 ST T D AN H E S D C H s T AR A ST R W O 2 O 5 I L T SC S M a y 2 0 1 0 H IN T T S A O A P C R N ST 22 O KA S N IN O 2 N 4 N SA ST B T E H C SAN FRANCISO T MAR S S T I- T 2 M IC ST Southern Waterfront Open Space System I LUE YL 8 SSO U R 2 0 T 15 3 AN R ST D U MI T T S R D P E Introduction SSI EXA I ST EN S T N SSI S R SYL ST PP VA O Blue Greenway I 16 N ST G I 2 A 2 A U N I VE H T D H T MI N 1 W AH Y T S D 0 N I Lin N AN 1 ST T I EN ES A 1 RPD Op L 5 S T O H REENWAY N T T T E L S I SSE A Non Po L S e Stat L T L I E A N 2 0 O ST A T M Port Op H 14 IS E D T S S A T S D T I I V 1 Othe 9 I S T H O N e ion S T S r n Sp 1 T t/RPD 12 1 8 T 2 H S R A M r P T en Spa Mission Creek Shoreline North S I O 3 13 P O ac Mission Creek Shoreline South S A lanned 10 S M 4 China Basin Park T M Ope e 11 A 5 Terry Francois I 9 S ce 6 7 T Pier 52 Boat Launch S H ST 1 n S 7 6 Op T Bayfront Park 8 H I T S O 8 Agua Vista Park 7 e p N ace 9 Mission Bay Parks 23 & 24 n 10 2 B Pier 64 Shoreline Access T Sp 3 6T OPEN SPACE INDEX E H 11 R A ST Illinois Street R D 12 R S Y 1 ace Blvd Y T Pier 70 Crane Cove Park 13 A F Pier 70 Upland Open Spaces R 14 A Improvements 6 N L Pier 70 Slipways Park C B T S T H R B T 5 O 0 15 O U I W X N Power Plant Shoreline Access S A O 16 B N N E M L S A 24th Street Improvements V E N D N T S D 5 S T T Warm Water Cove Park S I K B N R E 17 G R T S Y 18 S Islais Creek North-West 4 T 19 Tulare Park/Islais Creek North-East 20 Islais Landing/Islais Creek South 21 Third and Cargo Gateway 3 22 Cargo Way 23 Pier 94 Wetlands 24 Heron’s Head Park 25 PG&E Shoreline 26 Jennings St/Hunters Point Blvd/Innes Ave 27 Hudson Avenue Right-Of-Way Improvements 28 India Basin Shoreline Park 29 India Basin Open Space 30 Hunters Point Shipyard Open Spaces North 31 Hunters Point Shipyard Open Spaces South 32 Yosemite Slough Wetland Candlestick Point State Recreation Area Po rt of San Fr ancisco 1. Introduction Health and Environment An environmentally sustainable and accessible shoreline on the Bay that is safe and healthy for people as well as wildlife; Overview Connectivity The Blue Greenway is a City of San Francisco project to improve and A premier public open space system that connects San Francisco’s expand the public open space network along the City’s central and southeastern neighborhoods to the Bay; and southern waterfront, from China Basin Channel to the San Francisco County Line. Its focus is to define how new parks and public spaces can Economy and Development be created to complement and connect with existing open spaces in this A catalyst for responsive and responsible development, employment industrial and mixed use area. Collectively, the Blue Greenway is intended opportunities, and economic vitality. to define how San Francisco will carry out improvements to meet waterfront open space and recreational objectives set forth in the Association of Bay The Task Force preliminary recommendations are outlined in the Task Force Area Governments (ABAG) San Francisco Bay Trail Plan, and the San recommendations, which are illustrated in Exhibit 2, Blue Greenway Task Force Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Bay Vision Map and can be reviewed at: Area Water Trail Plan for southeast San Francisco. (see Exhibit 1, Blue http://www.bluegreenway.org/PDF/BG_vision_072606-2.pdf. Greenway Open Space System). The Blue Greenway concept evolved out of a recognition that San Francisco’s In 2006, Mayor Gavin Newsom created a Blue Greenway Task Force, portion of the Bay Trail is primarily completed on the northern portion of its which developed the following Vision Statement and Guiding Principles for waterfront from Golden Gate Bridge to AT&T Park, however, the area south of the Blue Greenway: the ballpark requires significant improvement. The Neighborhood Parks Council (NPC) and San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) Vision initiated the effort to promote coordination between public agencies to continue “The Blue Greenway is more than a trail; it is a unifying identity for the planning and implementation of Blue Greenway open space improvements. 13-mile corridor along San Francisco’s southeastern waterfront. The Blue While much of the area covered by the Blue Greenway is under the jurisdiction Greenway will link established open spaces; create new recreational of the Port of San Francisco, it also crosses many other regulatory jurisdictions. opportunities and green infrastructure; provide public access through the Therefore, the City has established an Interagency Working Group to implementation of the San Francisco Bay Trail, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail, and green corridors to surrounding neighborhoods; install coordinate on issues that cross geographical and agency responsibilities.
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]
  • February 2019 Port Commission Staff Report on the Seawall Program and Flood Study
    MEMORANDUM February 12, 2019 TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION Hon. Kimberly Brandon, President Hon. Willie Adams, Vice President Hon. Gail Gilman Hon. Victor Makras Hon. Doreen Woo Ho FROM: Elaine Forbes Executive Director SUBJECT: Informational update on the San Francisco Seawall Earthquake Safety and Disaster Prevention Program (Seawall Program) DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: No action – Informational Only EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an informational update to the Port Commission on the progress of the San Francisco Seawall Earthquake Safety and Disaster Prevention Program (Seawall Program). The last Commission update was on July 10, 2018. Highlights during this period include: • The $425 million Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety General Obligation Bond Measure passed on November 6, 2018 with 82.7% yes vote. • The Port was awarded a $5M grant for the Seawall Program from the California Natural Resources Agency, included in the California 2018-19 Budget Act. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Port commenced the San Francisco Waterfront Storm Risk Management Study General Investigation (GI) on September 5, 2018, and successfully completed the first study milestone, Alternatives Milestone Meeting, on December 3, 2018. • USACE and the Port came to a formal decision to suspend work on the USACE CAP 103 Study and devote resources to the larger USACE General Investigation. THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 13A PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO TEL 415 274 0400 TTY 415 274 0587 ADDRESS Pier 1 FAX 415 274 0528 WEB sfport.com San Francisco, CA 94111 • Field work for the geotechnical investigation was completed on time at the end of November and lab work is now under way.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures
    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
    [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]
  • Recreation and Parks Department
    April 2013 Mayor Edwin Lee San Francisco Board of Supervisors Eric Mar, Mark Farrell, David Chiu, Katy Tang, London Breed, Jane Kim, Norman Yee, Scott Wiener, David Campos, Malia Cohen and John Avalos. Recreation & Park Commission Mark Buell, Allan Low, Tom Harrison, Paige Arata, Gloria Bonilla, Meaghan Levitan and Larry Martin. SFRPD General Manager Philip A. Ginsburg SFRPD Climate Action Liaisons Ana M. Alvarez, Superintendent of Parks & Open Spaces CLIMATE ACTION Erin Anderson, Field Operations Senior Administrative Analyst MITIGATION REPORTING Contributing Staff Jeffrey Bramlett, Environment, Health and Safety Manager DATA YEAR: Kelly Cornell, Tree Topper Supervisor Dennis Kern, Director of Operations FY 2011-2012 Sean McFadden, Purchasing Principle Administrative Analyst Jacqueline Muller, San Francisco State University Intern Lydia Zaverukha, Fleet Operations Principle Administrative Analyst This report was developed in compliance with Sec. 904. City and County of San Francisco Environment Code Page 1 of 44 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 2. Departmental Profile ......................................................................................................... 4 3. Carbon Footprint ............................................................................................................... 9 3a. Building Energy ...................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 2018 Battle of the Bay Art Show
    NBC SPORTS BAY AREA, NBC SPORTS CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND A’S AND SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS PRESENT INAUGURAL “BATTLE OF THE BAY ART SHOW” A’s & Giants-Themed Art Exhibit During Bay Bridge Series, July 13-15 at AT&T Park and July 20-22 at the Oakland Coliseum “Battle of the Bay Art Show” to Showcase Artwork of 40 Northern California Artists “The Bridge,” New Trophy Awarded to Winner of A’s-Giants Bay Bridge Series, on Public Display for First Time at Show SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – July 9, 2018 – NBC Sports Bay Area and NBC Sports California (@NBCSAuthentic) – “Home of Authentic Bay Area Sports” – and Major League Baseball’s Oakland Athletics (@Athletics) and San Francisco Giants (@SFGiants) today announced the inaugural Battle of the Bay Art Show . The A’s and Giants-themed art exhibit takes place during the Giants and A’s annual Bay Bridge Series. The Battle of the Bay Art Show features the artwork of 40 Northern California artists and will be on display on July 13-15 adjacent to AT&T Park’s Giants Vault (located inside the Lefty O’Doul Gate) and July 20-22 at the Oakland Coliseum’s Championship Plaza . The exhibit is accessible to all fans inside the ballpark. To purchase game tickets for July 13-15 at AT&T Park click HERE , for July 20-22 game tickets at the Oakland Coliseum, click HERE . Admission to the art show is free with the purchase of a ticket to the game. The Battle of the Bay Art Show will feature A’s and Giants-themed art including legends, current players, mascots, stadiums and abstract representations.
    [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]
  • Message from the Director
    • R EPORT• TO• THE• C OMMUNITY•••••F ISCAL• Y EARS• 2002• & • 2003• MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is proud to present this report detailing the District’s many activities for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. We want you, the community we serve, to know about all the work we do District to protect Alameda County from flooding and the efforts • taken to protect and enhance our natural resources. Preparing and distributing a report like this allows us to reach people in the most meaningful way—by sharing the stories and images of design, construction, and maintenance projects completed in each flood control zone. In addition, a summary of District responsibilities and finances is provided for public review. Conservation Donald J. LaBelle, Director • D ISTRICT GOALS ater When the Flood Control District was established in 1949, its first concern was to reduce regional W flooding. Early in the District’s history, engineers and planners realized that • flood control infrastructure could, in some instances, provide recreation opportunities. Today, Alameda Creek Trail, Lake Elizabeth, and other trails, and parks, and lakes are a testament to the District’s forethought. • The District has continued to maintain and repair infrastructure built as long as 50 years ago while responding to flood control needs created by new development throughout the area. Over the last 20 years, the District has turned even greater attention to environmental concerns. This includes repairing local creeks Control • damaged by stormwater flows, returning channelized waterways to more natural settings, adding parks and learning centers in watershed areas, working to prevent stormwater pollution, and educating the public about individual and collective roles we can all take to create a healthier environment.
    [Show 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 ................................................................................
    [Show full text]