blue greenway Planning and Design Guidelines

Draft for Community Review May 2010 Prepared by: The Port of & 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

MI SSI O N EXCE LSI O R UTAH ST POTRERO AVE

HW Y 101 HW Y D

I AL

VI 101 1 SO M A 5

A SI

T

M H O ST

E ST N H ONT ST VERM D T

S 7 A

T

ST KANSAS ST S IL VER HW Y D ST ST ODE ISLAN H A RH PO TRE RO HI LL T 101 VE 6 N A T TUN PO E HARO S

NEL AV D

E L 0

VD E 5

BL T

RE O H

O A ST T N S SH N CAROLI Y BA VE S A T U IN ST O ISCONS L W A BR P VE TO AN VE A L AN S ST N A E KANSA AR BL A L MB D N AV S U O T X S AU C N O T P O UT ST ME E VE CTIC EW N A CONNE T V S N IN AN O ST E A K EV W V N A S MC URI ST 1 S E M VE MISSO 2 E E AVE A N T V A I D N A E D I-280 L L O KEY N V ST L A I C E O S ST W V R TEXA AL N E O A W L E E M MI SSI O N BAY AN SO JER ER V V A E A A PH ER R PPI ST KI A X ST E EL SSISSI G I D I MI N N E L V W JAMEST N L A PS G C I L MAN A ST A L T S ST U O I T Y H G ER ST T ER NIA AVE G L SYLVA I Z B PENN B V L T G E VE ER E I O A F E V R R N

P A EW N Y VE

A G I-280 S AR VE A H SO T

R C A N VE AL

E A D K I T O T VE L V C MAR F R E A ST

B VE E A O E T A D E A S

L ST AC V DIAN

R SEMI E IN V D A L S H C M YK V E A I A D R O D V PO YO AL A R A O A 1 W VE 17 N MAS R BAN T 6 W ER E A A S 1 T 1 AN T NESO S N 2 8 E O R MI A 9 V 3RD ST T

A T H 2 Y ER C 0 D T

H AF VE T H 2 D H S MEN VE T H H W A 2 EVE N N T S 3 H A ST E 2 ST R ESA S U 2 D E A E ST A D T R 4 NESSE D S U EL 2 5 R TEN T 3 V U Y V AL T 6 D ST ST Q L A T D H O T H ST VE E D ST H L A

AK O Z ST ST A E O O S P L 10 32 ST T T E 19 LLINOIS S 3 KW AL V VE I 8 KEI R S A I A 9 4 A N T K L H S ST E SO D N E 11 7 5 U V IN H A TE D 20 18 RRY IS BLV J AX A FRANCO E F 31 N R 12 N VE AI 15 6 IN F A G S S S N T A IN G EV AL LS ST

Y MARYLAND ST 16 A

H W

H AW

U O

N E

T

E

N E I T P

S O

R S X P Y G 13

Y S 14 T R 21 A C G R IF FI TH AR ST EL MIDDLE POINT RD IO U S W AL KER JE N D N R I y BAYVI EW N B a 25 G o S c ST i s 23 n c 26 27 r a 24 22 F 28 n

6T D a H R ST A VE P J

IS S

R I

ST C N

N

R E

V E

A S

D A O V

O 30 I ST W E Plan to Reconfigure DO K N IR AH K F R U IED E ST ST Candlestick Recreation H EL L S C T O LE Area & Open Spaces ST MAN M Y A SSE HU N ST OPEN SPACE INDEX SEA E V U T E S A

ST RAN CH EZ CO V L A ST G 1 Shoreline North 17 North-West HO D L ST R REL N O R E O MO F A IS V W H E K SPEAR ER C 2 18 MAH Mission Creek Shoreline South Tulare Park/Islais Creek North-East A O VE L AN ST

AVE 19 N 3 China Basin Park Islais Landing/Islais Creek South I MI

T 29 Z

A 4 Terry Francois Blvd Improvements 20 VE Third and Cargo Gateway 5 Pier 52 Boat Launch 21 Cargo Way 6 Bayfront Park 22 Pier 94 Wetlands 7 Agua Vista Park 23 Heron’s Head Park SAN FRANCISO 8 Mission Bay Parks 23 & 24 24 PG&E Shoreline B LUE G REENWAY 9 Pier 64 Shoreline Access 25 Jennings St/Hunters Point Blvd/Innes Ave Southern Waterfront Open Space System 10 Illinois Street 26 Hudson Avenue Right-Of-Way Improvements Blue Greenway 11 Pier 70 Crane Cove Park 27 India Basin Shoreline Park T Line Station 12 Pier 70 Upland Open Spaces 28 India Basin Open Space 13 29 RPD Open Space Pier 70 Slipways Park Hunters Point Shipyard Open Spaces North 14 Power Plant Shoreline Access 30 Hunters Point Shipyard Open Spaces South Non Port/RPD Open Space 15 24th Street Improvements 31 Yosemite Slough Wetland Port Open Space 16 Warm Water Cove Park 32 Candlestick Point State Recreation Area Miles M a y 2 0 1 0 Other Planned Open Space 0 0.25 0.5

Exhibit 1 Blue Greenway Open Space System Map Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction

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) 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 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 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 Water Trail, and green corridors to surrounding neighborhoods; install coordinate on issues that cross geographical and agency responsibilities. public art and interpretive elements; support stewardship; and advocate The Interagency Working Group includes the following agencies: for waterfront access as an element of all planning and development processes over time” • Port of San Francisco (Port) • San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) Guiding Principles • Department of Public Works (DPW) Identity • Mayor’s Office A working, urban waterfront that invites public use and enjoyment and • San Francisco Recreation and Parks (SFRP) access to the water; • Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) • San Francisco Planning Department • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission • San Francisco Arts Commission

Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction 1.1 Port of San Francisco

• San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (BCDC) advantage of existing community organizations and outreach processes that • Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Bay Trail are already in place. • Coastal Conservancy • California State Parks Department A Blue Greenway Community Steering Committee has been organized that represents a broad range of neighborhood stakeholder interests to ensure The Interagency Working Group will be coordinated by the Port. The there is ongoing participation and review, including: open space, park, water Interagency Group will provide expertise and oversight, coordinate between access and environmental advocates, and design professionals. The Steering multiple jurisdictions, provide technical review on best practices, and ultimately Committee representatives have committed to attending all public meetings be responsible in specified capacities in the implementation of Blue Greenway held during the community planning process, and provide a conduit for reporting back information about the developments of this project. Committee improvement projects. members also may assist in coordinating additional outreach efforts with their In 2008, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, Clean and Safe representative groups. In addition, they will be responsible for providing input Neighborhood Parks General Obligation (GO) Bond, which provides $33.5 on the Blue Greenway Planning and Design Guidelines and prioritization million for Port of San Francisco open space projects. Approximately $22 concepts at all stages of the work program. million of that funding is specifically targeted for Blue Greenway projects. In The Community Steering Committee includes: order to facilitate the expenditures of this GO Bond, the Port agreed to conduct a community planning process for the Blue Greenway that will: • A representative from the Port’s, Central Waterfront Advisory Group (CWAG), Southern Waterfront Advisory Committee (SWAC) and Maritime • define open space opportunities including programming (where & how Advisory Committee (MCAC) parks could be used); • Neighborhood Parks Council (NPC) • develop Blue Greenway Design Guidelines to provide continuity and • Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee (BVHP- PAC) cohesiveness throughout the open space system and the connections • Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee (HPSY - CAC) between them, including site furnishings, signage, interpretation, and public • Mission Bay Citizens Advisory Committee art amenities and • Literacy for Environmental Justice (LEJ) • prioritize improvements based upon available funds; Proposition A bond • Bicycle Coalition funds will be supplemented by other sources as available, which are • Bay Access described in this report. • SPUR • Natural Areas Blue Greenway Community Planning Process • NPC Blue Greenway Steering Committee • Green Trust The Port has developed a scope of work to conduct the community planning • State Parks Foundation process described below. DPW Bureau of Landscape Architects and SFRP are assisting the Port in developing this document, and will support work to Planning Area Organization - Sub- Areas develop open space design and program concepts. In addition, the Port will be The Blue Greenway area crosses multiple agency jurisdictions, districts and assisted by a landscape graphic design consultant to provide graphics design neighborhoods. To facilitate public participation, planning information will be services for signage, way-finding and identity development, and other City organized into three sub areas: agencies as required. 1) Northern sub-area located from Mission Creek to Islais Creek and The community planning process builds upon work developed through encompassing the Mission Bay and Central Waterfront communities and within several current and recent community planning and design efforts, and takes the Port of San Francisco and SFRA jurisdictions;

Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction 1.2 Port of San Francisco

Exhibit 2 Blue Greenway Task Force Vision Map

Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction 1.3 Port of San Francisco

2) Central sub-area, from Islais Creek to the northern boundary of the former Phase 3 will build upon the work completed for Phase 2 to produce Hunters Point Shipyard, including the Bayview Hunters Point community and preliminary program use concepts for open spaces; alternative design within the Port, SFRA and other City agencies jurisdictions; and concepts for site furnishings; signage, way-finding, public art locations and graphic features to define an identity for the Blue Greenway, and 3) Southern sub-area including the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick preliminary cost estimates. This information will be important to begin State Parks, in the Bayview Hunters Point community and within the jurisdiction understanding how to prioritize Blue Greenway projects, and may suggest of the SFRA, SFRP and California State Parks. improvements that can be implemented early. This information will be presented to the community and Port Commission (and other Commissions This approach will allow focused discussions for area stakeholders, which as required) for public review and comment. also can be combined to produce a comprehensive set of recommendations and standards for the Blue Greenway. Some sub-area meetings may focus Phase 4- Revise Concepts, Cost Estimates and Project Prioritization and on detail presentations and greater dialogue which could not be accomplished Funding Opportunities (November 2010 to early 2011) if the entire system needed to be discussed in a single meeting. All public community meetings will be open to all stakeholders. Phase 4 will revise the concepts, cost and project prioritizations based upon the community and Port Commission feedback gained from Phase The work program for the community planning process and the proposed 3. The work generated in this task will be presented to the community schedule has been divided into five phases, described below and illustrated in and Port Commission for review and input, and will include more detailed Exhibit 3, Blue Greenway Planning Process and Schedule: public discussions about project prioritization and implementation. Phase 4 also will include proposed Blue Greenway Design Guidelines for public Phase 1- Project Initiation (completed) comment and review. This task defined the scope of work for the community planning process and identified community and agency stakeholders to form the Interagency orkingW Phase 5 – Finalize Blue Greenway Project Priorities and Design Guidelines Group and Community Task Force in 2009. With direction from these groups, (Spring 2011) the Port worked with DPW and SFRP to research and document background Based on the public review and comments collected during Phase 4, Port information for all the Blue Greenway resources and opportunities. and City staff, and graphic design consultants will refine and produce final concepts for Blue Greenway open spaces, priority and implementation Phase 2 – Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints and Best proposal, and final Blue Greenway Design Guidelines. These will be Practices (May and June 2010) presented for review and consideration to the community and Port The research conducted in Phase 1 is the basis for this Existing Conditions Commission (and other Commissions as required). report. Phase 2 will involve public review and comment of this work at a community workshop and presentation to the Port Commission, which will Implementation include solicitation of improvement and programming ideas for Blue Greenway This Blue Greenway Planning process will identify a range of open open spaces. This public input will provide guidance for the staff and space improvements that can occur along San Francisco’s southeastern consultant work prepared in Phase 3. May and June, 2010. waterfront and identify an appropriate balance of uses across the entire Phase 3- Alternative Program/Use Concepts and Design Guideline Concepts network of open spaces and within individual open spaces. Recognizing (July to September 2010) that funding is not in place to make all of the improvements immediately, certain projects will be prioritized for immediate implementation based upon available funding. As individual projects are identified for implementation, they will go through a separate community planning and design review process to refine the concepts developed.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction 1.4 Port of San Francisco

As outlined in Phase 3, some projects may be identified for early available and will be considered in the discussions about funding and implementation, which is required to fulfill requirements of the 2008 prioritizing Blue Greenway projects. The Port has a variety of funding Proposition A, Clean and Safe General Obligation Bond. These projects will sources that may be utilized to help implement those portions of the Blue continue to be reviewed and refined through a community planning process Greenway within its jurisdiction. Funding sources of other City, State and and will require Port Commission and other regulatory partners review and Regional agencies also will be called upon to implement Blue Greenway approval. projects off-Port property. Secured funding sources are listed below, and some are restricted for certain types of open space improvements. Funding The Interagency Working Group will continue efforts to identify funding As stated above, the Proposition A Clean and Safe Parks GO Bond sources as part of this planning process. Further information on funding provides a primary funding source which supports this community planning sources and any restrictions are provided in Appendix A, Funding Sources. process as well as project implementation. Other funding sources are

Blue Greenway - Planning and Design Guidelines Community Planning Process and Schedule

2009 January - May June - August August - November November - Spring Continuing 2010 2010 2010 2010-2011 2011- on

Projects Identi ed for Early Implementation

Phase 1- Project Initiation

Phase 2- Existing Condition Opportunities and Constraints, Best Practices Phase 3 - Alternative Program and Design Guideline Concepts & Cost Estimates Phase 4- Revise Concepts, Cost Estimates, Project Prioritization and Funding Phase 5 - Finalize Planning and Guidelines Initiate Next Projects for Implementation

Indicates Port Commission Review and Community Outreach Projects Identi ed for early Implementation include: Bayfront Park Shoreline $3,000,000 Planning and Design Guidelines $ 300,000 Heron’s Head Park Expansion $1,600,000 Environmental Review $ 200,000

Exhibit 3 Blue Greenway Planning Process and Schedule

Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction 1.5 Port of San Francisco

• San Francisco’s 2008 Proposition A, Clean and Safe Parks General Obligation Bond $22 million • Port of San Francisco Lease Agreement with Transbay Cable Public Trust Benefit Payments; 550,000/year for 10 years. • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and San Francisco Public Utilities - Islais Creek Mitigation Funds; $700,000 • Port Southern Waterfront Beautification and Public Benefit Policy Funds: $550,000 • California Resource Agency, Environmental Enhancement Mitigation Grant, for Tulare Park; $275,000

In addition to these funding sources, the Port continues to investigate and apply for grants, including to the State of California for funds allocated through Proposition 84, the ABAG Bay Trail Program, the Coastal Conservancy and other funding sources that may be applicable to help improve the Blue Greenway.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Introduction 1.6 Port of San Francisco

2. Planning Context • India Basin Neighborhood Association (IBNA) has developed a Concept for The Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Area C, area. As previously described, the Blue Greenway overlaps with a number of • PG&E has developed a concept for the reuse of the former Hunters Point City, Regional and State agencies that have jurisdiction and adopted plans Power Plant site over the planning area. Each of these plans have been reviewed and • State Parks Foundation Yosemite Slough Restoration Project, supported by are reflected in the description of Existing Conditions, Opportunities and LEJ , ARC Ecology and other organizations Constraints and Best Practices presented later in this document. Each of these Plans that apply to the Blue Greenway are summarized in Appendix Resource Deficiencies B, Summary of Plans that Apply to the Blue Greenway. The San Francisco Bay is a dominant feature of the Bay Area and provides In general, plans and policies that influence the Blue Greenway fall into a unique setting for a variety of open space and recreational opportunities. three categories, presented below: Due to its unique attributes, it is important in the development of open space programming and planning that uses and programs within the waterfront Plans and Policies that Apply to the Entire Blue Greenway open space system take advantage of the setting. This premise is outlined in the Public Trust doctrine, in that it recognizes the unique setting and special • California State Lands, Public trust Doctrine features that shoreline open spaces must serve the greater population of the • San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) region and not be programmed for specific local serving uses. 1. the BCDC Seaport Plan 2. the San Francisco Special Area Plan As outlined in both the Port’s Waterfront Land Use Plan and in the Central 3. Draft San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan. Waterfront Plan, much of this area has and continues to be used for industrial • ABAG – San Francisco Bay Trail Program types of uses and open space and shoreline access to date has not been • Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan and appropriate or compatible. These conditions are evolving and some of the Design & Access Element areas will become mixed use neighborhoods allowing open spaces and public • City of San Francisco Recreation and Open Space Element of the shoreline access improvements to be made, yet it must be recognized that General Plan some areas will continue to be used for industrial uses limiting public access. • City of San Francisco Bicycle Plan Method of Analysis Neighborhood Plans To determine where resource deficiencies may exist, all parks within • Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan approximately a half-a-mile mile of the Blue Greenway were evaluated to see • Central Waterfront Area Plan what amenities were provided. The 1half-a-mile mile dimension is a commonly • Pier 70 Preferred Master Plan used “walk-shed” is in an open space analysis. Exhibit 4, Blue Greenway Map • Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan and Area C Plan and Adjacent Open Spaces and Table 1 Open Space Resources, identifies the • Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard Draft Redevelopment facilities included in the analysis. Plan A review of existing and planned amenities along the Northern, Central and • Candlestick State Park General Plan Southern sub-areas of the Blue Greenway provided information helpful to the Other Community Plans development of the Blue Greenway. Each of the public spaces, existing and planned provided by a variety of jurisdictions were assessed for the type of • Green Trust’s effort to improve 22nd Street to better connect the amenities provided. The areas of focus were: Dogpatch Neighborhood with Third Street and eventually to the waterfront.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Planning Context 2.1 Port of San Francisco Blue Greenway Open Space Programming Matrix Pedest./ Active Community Facilities and Public Transit Bike Water Access and Views Passive Recreation Habitat Recreation Support Access KEY: X=PRESENT, P=PLANNED, F=FUNDED Access ec eat o Bay Trail - Pedestrian Pedestrian - Trail Bay Access Multi-Modal Trail Bay Access Water Pedestrian Water Viewof Launch Craft Small Pier Fishing Storage Boat Launch Boat Trailered Support) Access (Water Camper Trailer/ Boat Parking Fields Sports Courts Sport Playground Skatepark PicnicAreas Recreation Passive Gardens Community Run Dog Art Public Entertainment Outdoor Restoration Wetland Restoration Upland Garden Native Kiosk Food or Café Restrooms Center/Clubhouse Storage Maintenance/ Facility Education Nature BicycleParking Automobile Dedicated Parking (w/in Rail Light - MUNI mile) 1/2 1/2 (w/in Bus - MUNI mile) mile) 1/2 CALTRAIN(w/in OPEN SPACES

1 Mission Creek Shoreline North X XXX X XX XXX X XX XXX

A Mission Bay - Childrens Park F F FF F F XX

2 Mission Creek Shoreline South XXX XXX XX XX XXX

B Mission Bay Commons XXXXXX X X XX

C Mission Bay - Junior Soccer Field F FF F FF XX

3 China Basin Park XXXX X XX X XXX

4 Terry Francois Blvd. Improvements. XXXX X X X XXX

5 Pier 52 Boat Launch X XXX XX XX X X X

6 Bayfront Park FFFF FF FF FPPF X

7 Aqua Vista Park X XXX XX X XX XX

8 Mission Bay Parks P23 & P24 F F FF F F F F XX

9 Pier 64 Shoreline Access X X XX X X XX

10 XX X XXX N o r t h t r No Illinois Street Improvements

11 Pier 70 Crane Cove Park PP P PP P XX

12 Pier 70 Upland Open Spaces X X X XX

13 Pier 70 Shipway Park PPX X XX

14 Power Plant Shoreline P X XX

15 24th Street Improvements X XX XX

D Esprit Park XX X XXX

E Arkansas Friendship Garden XX XXX

F XX XXX Connecticut Friendship Garden G XX XX Mini Park H XXX XXX XXXX XX Potrero Hill Recreation Center 16 Warm Water Cove Park X XX XX X XX X X

17 FF F XFF F F FF XX Islais Creek North -West

18 X XX XXX X XF XX Islais Creek North -East

19 Islais Creek South XXXXXX XX X X X XX

20 Third and Cargo X X XX

21 Cargo Way PP X XX

22 Pier 94 Wetlands XX XX X

23 Heron's Head Park X XX XXFF XXX X X X X

24 X XXX X X C e n t r a l a r t n Ce PG&E Shoreline Access Jennings/ Hunter's Point Blvd/ Innes Ave./ 25/26 X X X Hudson Ave. Improvements

27 India Basin Shoreline Park X XX XX XX XX P X X

I Youngblood-Coleman Playground XXX XX F X XX

J Ridgetop Plaza X X XX

K X XXXXX X X XX

L Adam Rogers Park XX XXX X XX

28 India Basin Open Space XX X XX X

29 Hunters Point Shipyard OS North PPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPP P

30 Hunters Point Shipyard OS South PPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPP P

31 Yosemite Slough Wetland XXX X XX XX

M Bayview Playground X XXX XX X

31 XXXXX XXX X X

S o u t h t u So Candlestick State Park

N Monster Park X XX X XX X Table 1 O Gilman Playground XXX XX XXX X Open Space Resources P Bayview Park X X X XXX Q Little Hollywood Park XX XX X XX

Blue Greenway Design Standards Planning Context 2.2 Port of San Francisco

MI SSI O N EXCE LSI O R UTAH ST POTRERO AVE

HW Y 101 HW Y D

I AL

VI 101 1 SO M A 5

A SI

T

M H O ST

E ST N H ONT ST VERM D T

S 7 A

T

ST KANSAS ST S IL VER HW Y D ST ST ODE ISLAN H A RH PO TRE RO HI LL T 101 VE 6 N A T TUN PO E HARO S

NEL AV D

E L 0

VD E 5

BL T

RE O H

O A ST T N S SH N CAROLI Y BA VE S A T Half Mile Setback U IN ST O ISCONS L W A BR P VE TO AN VE A L Q AN S ST N A E KANSA E AR BL A L MB D N AV S U O T X S N O AU C G T P O UT ST ME E VE H CTIC EW N A CONNE T V S N IN AN O ST E A K EV F W V N A S MC URI ST 1 S E M VE MISSO 2 E E AVE A N T V A I D N A E D I-280 L L O KEY N V ST L A I C E O S ST W V R TEXA AL N E O A W L E E M MI SSI O N BAY AN SO JER V A ER V Half Mile Setback E A A PH ER R PPI ST KI A X ST E EL SSISSI G I D I MI N N E L V W JAMEST N L A PS G C I L MAN A ST A L T S ST U O I T Y H G ER ST T ER NIA AVE P G L SYLVA I Z B PENN B V L T G E VE ER E I O A F E V R R N A

P M A EW N Y VE

A G I-280 S AR VE A H SO T

R C A N VE AL

E A D K I T O T VE L C V C MAR F R E A ST

B VE E A O E T A D E A S

L ST AC V DIAN D

R SEMI E IN V D A L S H C M YK V E A I A D R O D V PO YO AL A R A O A 1 W VE 17 N MAS R BAN T 6 W ER E A A S 1 T 1 AN T NESO S N 2 8 E O R MI A 9 V 3RD ST T

A T H 2 Y ER C 0 D T

H AF VE T H 2 D H S MEN VE T H H W A 2 EVE N N T S 3 H A ST E 2 ST R ESA S U 2 D E A E ST A D T R 4 NESSE D S U EL 2 5 R TEN T 3 V U Y V AL T 6 D ST ST Q L A T D H O T H ST VE E D ST H L A

AK O Z ST ST A E O O S P L 10 B 32 ST T T O E 19 LLINOIS S 3 KW AL V VE I 8 KEI R S A I A 9 4 A N T K L H S ST E SO D N E 11 7 5 U V IN H A TE D 20 18 RRY IS BLV J AX A FRANCO N E F 31 N R 12 N VE AI 15 6 IN F A G S S S N T A IN G I EV AL LS ST L J Y MARYLAND ST 16 K A

H W

H AW

U O

N E

T

E

N E I T

P S O

R S X P Y G 13

Y S 14 T R 21 A C G R IF FI TH AR ST EL MIDDLE POINT RD IO U S W AL KER JE N D N R IN BAYVI EW G Northern Section 25 S ST 23 26 27 24 22 1 Mission Creek Shoreline North 26 Hudson Avenue Right-Of-Way Improvements 28 2 Mission Creek Shoreline South 27 India Basin Shoreline Park 6T D H R ST A VE P J

IS

R I 3 28

N China Basin Park

ST C India Basin Open Space

N

R E

V E

A S

D A 4 29 V Terry Francois Blvd Improvements Hunters Point Shipyard Open Spaces North O

O 30 I ST W E Plan to Reconfigure DO K N IR AH K F 30 R U 5 Hunters Point Shipyard Open Spaces South IED E Pier 52 Boat Launch ST ST Candlestick Recreation H EL L S C T O 6 Bayfront Park 31 Yosemite Slough Wetland LE Area & Open Spaces ST MAN M Y A SSE HU ST N 32 SEA 7 Agua Vista Park Candlestick Point State Recreation Area E V U T E S A

ST RAN OCH EZ A C V 8 Mission Bay Parks P23 & P24 Children’s Park L A ST G HO D L ST R REL N O R E O B MO F A 9 Mission Bay Commons IS V W Pier 64 Shoreline Access H E K SPEAR ER Central Section MAH C A O VE L AN 10 C Mission Bay - Junior Soccer Field ST Illinois Street

AVE N

I MI D T 29 11 Esprit Park Z Pier 70 Crane Cove Park

A VE S a n 12 Pier 70 Upland Open Spaces E Arkansas Friendship Garden F 13 Pier 70 Slipways Park F Connecticut Friendship Garden r a n c 14 Power Plant Shoreline Access G Potrero Hill Mini Park i 15 24th Street Improvements H Potrero Hill recreation Center s SAN FRANCISO c 16 Warm Water Cove Park I Youngblood-Coleman Playground o Southern Section B LUE G REENWAY 17 Islais Creek North-West J Ridgetop Plaza B Southern Waterfront Open Space System a 18 Tulare Park/Islais Creek North-East K Hilltop Park y Blue Greenway 19 Islais Landing/Islais Creek South L Adam Rogers Park T Line Station 20 Third and Cargo Gateway M Bayview Playground 21 Cargo Way N Monster Park Exhibit 4 RPD Open Space 22 Pier 94 Wetlands O Gilman Playground Blue Greenway Non Port/RPD Open Space 23 Heron’s Head Park P Bayview Park and Adjacent Miles Port Open Space 24 PG&E Shoreline Q Little Hollywood Park Open Spaces M a y 2 0 1 0 0 0.25 0.5 Other Planned Open Space 25 Jennings St - Innes Ave Map

Blue Greenway Design Standards Planning Context 2.3 Port of San Francisco

• Bay Trail Access (pedestrian and bike trails) Resource Deficiencies: The Central Blue Greenway sub-area currently lacks a • Water Access (pedestrian, kayak, small boat, fishing) Dog Play Area. There is a proposal to include an official dog play area at the • Active Recreation (sports fields or courts, playgrounds, skateparks) proposed expansion of Herons’ Head Park which would fill this need. There is • Passive Recreation (views, picnic areas, seating, public art, entertainment, no indoor active recreation space, such as a recreation center or clubhouse. community gardens, dog runs) • Habitat (wetlands, upland areas, native garden, native plant nursery) Recommendation: The planned Heron’s Head Park expansion/improvement • Community Facilities and Support (restrooms, recreation buildings, food project includes a dog run/play area. Indoor active recreation is not consistent purchase opportunities) with the public trust or a facility that the Port is positioned to manage. • Transit Access (MUNI, Caltrain, Designated Parking, Boat and Trailer Additionally, the residential population within the central Blue Greenway sub- Parking). area is limited and a critical mass of residents may not exist to support an indoor recreation facility. Resources Southern Blue Greenway sub area Open Spaces Northern Blue Greenway sub-area Open Spaces Nearly all of the Southern Blue Greenway sub-area is within former Hunters Amenities/Programs Provided: The Northern Blue Greenway sub-are provides Point Shipyard and with the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Redevelopment considerable Bay Trail and pedestrian access, visual water access, small Agency and City Recreation and Parks Department and Navy. The southern boat access, active recreation (particularly around Mission Creek), community portion of the site is within the Candlestick State Park area. Currently there are gardens, a dog run, a small outdoor entertainment venue, public art and plans for a Redevelopment of the former shipyard, state and City Candlestick interpretation and limited food and restrooms. parks as a part of a project referred to as the Shipyard Candlestick Park Draft Redevelopment Plan. This plan would include a nearly an entire new park Resource Deficiencies: The southern section of the Northern sub-area lacks system, including waterfront parks. The State Parks department is in the active recreation and direct water access. Potrero Recreation Center, located process of developing a new Master Plan, recognizing the proposed plans. at Arkansas and 23rd Street, is on the periphery of the 1/2 mile range, but a very significant elevation change occurs between the waterfront residential It is anticipated that once plans are implemented, this portion of the Blue areas (Dogpatch) and the facility. In addition, there is little habitat for wildlife Greenway would provide for the full spectrum of open space and programs provided. appropriate.

Recommendation: If a suitable location can be identified in the northern The following analysis is based upon what exist in April of 2010, recognizing portion of the Blue Greenway, consideration for active recreation and habitat significant plans are in the process of the entitlement stage and will required restoration space should be given. Active recreation uses require large further detail planning and design. open areas and are not a public trust consistent use and may prove difficult to program. Habitat opportunities may exist and are consistent with the Amenities/Programs Provided: The Southern Blue Greenway sub-area public trust, but areas that are suitable may be difficult to identify because of provides active and passive recreation opportunities, water access at state environmental contamination or required area to provide valuable habitat. parks for human powered craft and water views. In addition Yosemite Slough provides a variety of habitats, including wetlands and upland areas that are Central Blue Greenway sub-area Open Spaces planned for restoration and improvement.

Amenities/Programs Provided: The Central Blue Greenway sub-area provides Resource Deficiencies: The Southern Blue Greenway provides no formal dog considerable active recreation at India Basin Shoreline Park and Youngblood- run, lacks art, currently lacks many amenities for pedestrians. There is no Coleman Park, visual water access is provided in several places, passive indoor active recreation space, such as a recreation center or clubhouse. recreation opportunities are numerous with picnic and other opportunities. A small craft boat launch is provided at Islais Creek South.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Planning Context 2.4 Port of San Francisco

All Areas

Amenities/Programs Provides: Northern, Central and Southern sub- areas of the Blue Greenway provide considerable passive recreation opportunities including views and picnic areas. Most areas provide various active recreational opportunities such as sports courts, playgrounds, and sports fields. All areas are well served by Muni Bus Service and Muni Light Rail.

Resource Deficiencies: Northern, Central and Southern sub-areas of the Blue Greenway do not provide many outdoor concert/performance opportunities, art, dog (one at mission creek shoreline north), or skate facilities. In addition, other than some food opportunities in the northern waterfront, all areas lack food access and adequate restroom facilities.

Recommendation: A component of the Blue Greenway project will include public art, which may be included within the signage and interpretation. In addition facilities to help activate the open space in the form of concessions and restroom facilities should be analyzed in program development.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Planning Context 2.5 Port of San Francisco

Signage/Interpretation/Art Best Practices 4. Best Practices Wayfinding Signage A thorough review of relevant best practices is a key component in the development of any Plan. By conducting a comprehensive review Several plans recommend different types and scales of wayfinding signage for of various best practice examples from cities with similar waterfront different uses and users. The San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade project conditions, the Blue Greenway Study will benefit from the lessons learned proposes three basic signage types: city or district scale, vehicular scale, along other urban waterfronts. pedestrian or bike scale.

Based upon the preliminary analysis of existing condition along the Blue The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Greenway and an initial understanding of other waterfront open space (BCDC) recommends specific signage dimensions for way finding and basic system plans, the Best Practices that were analyzed were organized informational signage for both the pedestrian and vehicular user.1 into components that will be applicable to the Blue Greenway, including: signage, interpretation and public art; programming and uses; connections The Oakland Waterfront Trail’s Feasibility & Design Guidelines employ large and trails; Site Furnishings; and material selection. vertical lights and markers which range from 15 to 24 feet to provide wayfinding queues and visual interest. The markers use lighting and etched patterns to indicate the different environments the trail passes through such as “marina,” Best Practices Reviewed “marshland,” “industrial” and “downtown.”2 In addition, the guidelines also recommend fourteen 75-80 feet metal “Archimedes Columns” to mark the Projects considered in this best practice review included those that provide 3 considerable new and renovated waterfront open space and public access. existing steams and watersheds. These markers serve dual functions of way finding and interpretations, by allowing people to see the trail from a great Port of San Francisco distance, and provide education about the natural systems present on the site.

• The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design & Access Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: • Embarcadero Promenade Standards (draft March 2010) A component of the work program of the Blue Greenway planning and design guidelines process is to develop a comprehensive sign program. San Francisco Bay Interpretative Art/Signage • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 1. Public Access Design Guidelines: Shoreline Spaces Signage can do more than provide directions: it can educate. Pedestrian 2. Public Access Signage Guidelines: Shoreline Signs – level signage can provide information about many aspects of a site, • Oakland Waterfront Trail allowing the user to have a richer experience and a fuller understanding of the waterfront. BCDC recommends the use of more “comprehensive signs” which “inform and educate visitors of the unique historical, cultural and Southern California natural features” and “describe environmental sensitivity and/or any rules and 4 • San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade restrictions associated with the management of the area. 1 Shoreline Signs: Public Access Signage Guidelines, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com- mission, August 2005. Non – California 2 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche • Hudson River Park, New York City Inc, p. 4-10 &11. • Blueways Plan, City of Vancouver, Canada 3 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche Inc, p. 4-13. 4 Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, BCDC, April 2005, p. 21.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.1 Port of San Francisco

One interesting approach to be used by the Bayfront Parks System in Mission Bay integrates infrastructure and site furnishings with interpretation and education. The project uses a series of four raised access hatches for the Storm Water Pump Station which each have an educational panel describing one of the four storm water treatment steps, characterized as “collect,” “convey,” “cleanse,” and “outlet.“ The educational hatches are designed to function as seating.6 This integrated approach provides information to the users through functional elements in an un-obtrusive way.

Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: A component of the work program of the Blue Greenway planning and design process is to develop a sign and interpretation program that if appropriate can integrate public art.

San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade provides three signage types at three different scales: city or district scale, vehicular scale and pedestrian or bike scale.

The Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront Design and Access plan recommends the use of interpretive signage throughout major open spaces focusing on significant “cultural historic or educational interest”. It also recommends content that can be appeal to a wide spectrum of users and ability. 5

Oakland Waterfront Trail’s markers use lighting and etched patterns

5 The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design & Access: An Element of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, The 6 Bayfront Parks P23 & P 24 Mission Bay, Schematic Design Submittal, by Hargreaves Associates and Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Planning Department, June 2004, p. 41 & 138. BKF for Mission Bay Development Group, September 28, 2009, p 16.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.2 Port of San Francisco

Oakland Waterfront Trail’s “Archimedes provided by the Port of San Francisco along the Embarcadero Promenade and Columns” mark existing streams and watersheds a shoreline fountain which is activated by the tides of the bay in San Mateo.8

The San Francisco Bay Conserva- tion and Development Commission (BCDC) recommends interpretative elements that provide an “art experi- ence” with the environment and pro- vides the example of a fountain which is activated by the tides of the bay.

Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: A component of the work program of the Blue Greenway planning and design process is to consider opportunities for public art. In addition, the Port will be developing a waterfront public arts program that will be integrated into the Blue Public Art from the Micro to the Monumental, Greenway Project. Environmentally Grounded to the Whimsical Interpretation Through Preservation Art can come in all scales and through partnerships with the community. The San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade Project developed an Art Mater Interpretation and historical information can be provided through retaining or Plan which recommends the establishment of an Art Oversight Board reusing selective features on the site. The Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront responsible for the implementation of the Art Masterplan. The Board will Design and Access plan focuses heavily on historic resources and the propose a variety of specific ideas and sites for artwork. Themes for art to importance of preserving, documenting and providing interpretive exhibits that 9 be used include: imaginative architecture and land form; “micro-moves” or focus on the areas’ unique maritime, commercial, labor and industrial history. very small art works integrated into the landscape; “whimsy” or art works The Hudson River Park Design Guidelines Master Plan proposes a “park-wide which are playful and provide interactivity; “contextual” art which relate to interpretation program” which 1) preserves the existing historical elements in the history of values of the site; “urban scale” or large scale art which bring the site, 2) provides information on the historic nature of the site, 3) designs dramatic energy to the site; and “environment” art which focusing on using park features inspired in form by historic elements or environmental features, the natural forces and intensifying elements like water, light and sound in 4) preserves major historical features, and 5) incorporates extensive use of art.7 This very comprehensive approach provides a clear way for art to be historic materials and elements from the site into the new construction.10 This proposed, reviewed and selected within a larger plan, same general approach is used in all of the Plans reviewed. BCDC recommends the use of interpretive elements that provide both visual interest and an “art experience” but also provides information about 8 Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Bay Conserva- the historic or specific environmental setting. Examples include signage tion and Development Commission, April 2005, p. 30. 9 The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design & Access: An Element of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, The 7 San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade, from Bridge to Breakwater, Master Development Plan, Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Planning Department, June 2004, p. 50-57. Ehrenkrantz Eckstut &Kuhn Architects/Gafcon, Inc. for The City of Los Angeles, September 2005, p.43 10 Hudson River Park: Design Guidelines Master Plan, Hudson River Park Conservancy in cooperation with Empire State Development Corporation and the City of New York, 1998?, p. 17

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.3 Port of San Francisco

Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: Water Access A component of the work program of the Blue Greenway planning and design process is to make certain that interpretation is integrated into all open space A unique waterfront open space experience is physical water access. The improvement projects. The entire length of the Blue Greenway has a rich Oakland Waterfront Trail project provides a Boat Launch at the Cryer Site natural and cultural history, which must be incorporated in to all future projects. Park which allows the public to enter the water. Along the edge of the pier, “floating wetlands” provide interest and breakdown the hard edge between Open Space Programming Best Practices land and water. 11

The vast majority of all public open spaces are not on the water, because of Vancouver Canada’s Blueways plan stresses the importance of adding this waterfront open space provides a unique opportunity – the experience water uses, to the waterfront for marine industries, moorage space for of being on land and viewing the water, or being on the water and viewing marinas, swimming, fishing, boating, paddle sports and “water-based land and water. Therefore, focusing the use and programming of these areas festivals.”12 The need to provide opportunities for storage and launching along that edge is of upmost importance. The need to protect this legacy is areas for hand-powered craft is central to the recreational development in reinforced by Public Trust restrictions, which guide the development along their Blueways plan.13 San Francisco’s waterfront to insure that it reinforces and supports the public’s access and use of these less common places. Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: The “Blue” in Blue Greenway recognizes the newly established San San Francisco Bay Trail and Waterfront Access Francisco Bay Area Water Trail. The Port and other City agencies have been working closely with recreational boaters to identify appropriate The San Francisco Bay Trail is a trail that will, upon full completion, provide an locations along the Blue Greenway to identify a variety of water access uninterrupted public access route around the San Francisco Bay. This trail and points. The opportunities must be analyzed with conditions or uses trails like it have been provided for in waterfront front parks in a variety ways. that must be recognized, including: maritime and cargo operations, environmental conditions relating to historic activities and climatic The Oakland Waterfront Trail and other projects like the Mission Bay conditions. Redevelopment Plan bring the Bay Trail alignment to the edge of the water. In both projects, water side access is provided by a trail or built path adjacent to Active Recreation the waters edge. In the Hudson River Park Plan and the San Pedro Waterfront Plan, waterfront access is also provided along the edge but both plans In many of the best practice examples, active recreation amenities have emphasize viewing platforms or an additional raised promenade where water been provided with the open space development plan. The Oakland direct access can not be provided. Waterfront Trail installation will link several new active recreation amenities including a Skate Park (a park with skateboard facilities), additional soccer Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: fields added to the Oakport Park / Martin Luther King Regional Shoreline The alignment of the Blue Greenway is substantially different than most of the and lawns and open spaces that can be used as flexible athletic space as waterfront plans reviewed for Best Practices because the Blue Greenway will in the Estuary Park Plan. 14 The Mission Bay Parks Redevelopment Plan not be a continuous waterfront pathway through a series of open spaces, but rather a combination of a series of open spaces connected through existing 11 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, public street rights-of-ways and as a series of waterfront parks. The location Hood Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche Inc, (DATE?), p. 5-12. of the Blue Greenway, which includes a mix of cargo, maritime and other 12 Blueways: An Initiative of the Vancouver Water Opportunities Advisory Group (Draft), Vancouver industrial uses in some conditions precludes public access to some portions of Water Opportunities Advisory Group, July 1997, p. 5. waterfront because of safety and/or operational requirements. Where possible, 13 Blueways: An Initiative of the Vancouver Water Opportunities Advisory Group (Draft), Vancouver the Blue Greenway collection of open spaces will be connected by off street Water Opportunities Advisory Group, July 1997, p. 29. 14 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, access ways, but in some conditions that will not be possible. Hood Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.4 Port of San Francisco provides a diversity of active recreation facilities including “Children’s Play Hills,” a half-basketball court and an active recreation lawn.

Cabrillo Beach, within the San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade Plan, is perhaps the most actively programmed park within the proposed development. The 33-acre area would provide marine-themed children’s play areas, a beachfront boardwalk, an interactive water feature, an all-ages climbing wall, picnic areas, events area, volleyball courts, open lawn, wind surfing, boating, interpretive elements and satellite educational facilities for the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium. While other parks nearby will provide additional active recreation elements, Cabrillo Beach is concentrated active recreation venue for families and adults.

Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: As previously stated, the Public Trust doctrine applies to all lands within the Port of San Francisco’s jurisdiction of the Blue Greenway, which limits many active recreation uses such as formalized sports fields or playground structures. However these types of uses are allowed and provided within some of the Mission Bay open spaces and planned Candlestick Hunters Point Redevelopment Areas, which should be able to accommodate the adjacent community’s needs. If required some opportunity for a minimal amount of local serving active recreational uses may be considered within the Port’s Pier 70 open spaces.

Passive Recreation

The most prevalent and natural recreational opportunity provided in the Mission Bay P23 & P24 Parks use seating to provide spaces for passive activity. best practice examples are passive recreational opportunities to allow the public to experience the water. Passive recreational opportunities to view Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: and hear the water and water related amenities are provided in all of the A task within the Blue Greenway planning process is to determine the variety best practice reviewed. Many recent projects provide seating, plazas, of types of uses and programs to occur within the Blue Greenway open space picnic areas and water viewing areas to provide users choice and variety system and to balance the variety of uses. In addition certain uses are likely to in their experience of the waterfront. Mission Bay Shoreline Parks provide be more appropriate in certain locations, so the planning process will identify seating, plaza areas, picnic areas and a variety of garden environments. appropriate locations for the variety of uses along the Blue Greenway. Throughout the Oakland Waterfront Trail plan, a variety of passive open spaces with different waterfront plantings are provided. BCDC recommends providing in-car Bay viewing opportunities where appropriate near the water in addition to providing opportunities to view the waterfront by foot or bike. This allows people to visit and view the water in a protected environment in certain weather and enjoy the waterfront in another way.15 Gabriel Roche Inc, (DATE?), p. 5-6. 15 Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Bay Con- servation and Development Commission, April 2005, p. 18.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.5 Port of San Francisco

Habitat Furnishing Best Practices

The Oakland Waterfront trail project provides a planting concept which would By developing a set of recommended furnishings, the Blue Greenway can provide “a small amount of native habitat for species that occur along the provide amenities for a variety of user needs. San Francisco’s waterfront shore.”16 It provides recommended plant lists and plant sizes for use in the has developed many of these furnishing Best Practices in the Port of San salt marsh areas, the upland areas, and transition zones between the salt Francisco’s Waterfront Design and Access plan. San Francisco’s PortWalk marsh and the upland areas. These plantings are native and the plan provides Design Criteria provides a set of recommended features and furnishings which instruction about how to transition from non-native to native plants in these provides design consistency and a unified character. These include many waterfront locations. of the features discussed below such as lighting, benches, trash, paving, plantings and signage.17 Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: As previously discussed above, the programming of uses for the variety of Amenities for Use open spaces will be analyzed as a component of the Blue Greenway Planning Necessary amenities for the public on site in new open spaces include trash process, this will include identification of appropriate locations for habitat containers, drinking fountains, appropriate lighting, bike racks and restrooms if restoration and type of habitat. appropriate. By providing more and versatile amenities, park users are able to stay longer at the park and use the park for more types of uses.

Entertainment, Community and Cultural facilities Amenities for Gathering: Gathering, Picnic, Seating Areas Essential to any public space is space for seating. Seating options range from There are informal and semi-formal outdoor viewing and performance areas small to larger or group seating/picnic/gathering venues. Most projects provide provided in the San Pedro Waterfront Plan. In addition, the San Pedro fixed benches, and picnic tables, but areas for seating can be created with the Waterfront Plan discusses the development of new facilities along with the strategic use of retaining walls, planter seats, grass berms (landform), steps redevelopment of certain historic structures and warehouses for the Maritime and movable chairs. 18 Museum, the Maritime Exposition Building Complex, the Ralph J. Fireboat Display, and the new Red Car Museum (a trolley care line). The first three Concessions or Food focus on the maritime nature of the site and provide educational and cultural Providing opportunities for the public to purchase food or beverage in or near experiences to visitors of the San Pedro Waterfront. Warehouse No. 1, to be the recreational space can result in longer stays and more usage of parks. By used for the Red Car Museum and Maintenance Facility, is historic and listed providing a place to purchase food, a park user may be able to visit a park on the National Register of Historic Places. in a more casual and spontaneous way. Most of the best practice examples discuss immediately adjacent commercial spaces to the waterfront where food Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: can be provided. The San Pedro Plan, for example, discusses up to 320,000 As previously discussed, the programming of uses for the variety of open square feet of restaurant and retail space over a 10 year implantation phase. spaces will be analyzed as a component of the Blue Greenway Planning 19 The Hudson River Park Plan creates strong pedestrian connections to the process, this will include identification of appropriate locations for potential existing streets and business directly adjacent to the length of the park were entertainment facilities for special events within open spaces. numerous retail opportunities exist close by to provide food to park users. The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department is currently proposing new

17 The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design & Access: An Element of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, The Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Planning Department, June 2004, p. 36-41. 16 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood 18 Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Bay Conser- Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche vation and Development Commission, April 2005, p. 19. Inc, (DATE?), p. 4-22. 19 San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade, from Bridge to Breakwater, Master Development Plan, Ehren- krantz Eckstut &Kuhn Architects/Gafcon, Inc. for The City of Los Angeles, September 2005, p. 68.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.6 Port of San Francisco food carts and other small food purchasing opportunities in numerous parks Case Study: A Site Specific but Unified Approach: around San Francisco. The Oakland Waterfront Trail Example In the Oakland Waterfront Trail Design Guidelines, guidelines for the park Surface Materials improvements are developed for paved surfaces, site furniture and railings. Surface materials range from decomposed granite, mulch, aggregated Guideline recommendations include materials and how elements are to be pavers, and poured paved surfaces. A variety of paving stones and used consistent with the character of the park in that area. Along different patterns are used in the more “built” examples of shoreline development. portions of the waterfront trail, different furnishing palettes are employed. 23 At the same time, a system of matching lighting and markers are used along Plantings the entire length of the trail.24 This provides unique parks and trails within an Planting design concepts for specific planted zones can provide another overall unified system. type of design guidance for waterfront parks. The Oakland Waterfront Trail does this by defining three types of zones: salt marsh vegetation, the Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: upland areas, and the transition zone between salt marsh and the uplands. As previously discussed, a variety of environmental and neighborhood In addition, it recommends the use of “vegetative screens” to protect conditions exist along the Blue Greenway. Because of the diversity of bird areas from visual disturbance of pedestrians.20 By providing distinct conditions, the range of materials that may be appropriate along the Blue planting zones and landscapes, a diversity of environments and habitat can Greenway will vary. In the next phase of this planning effort, a variety of be provided along with a range of experiences for users. material palettes will be presented that will be appropriate along the Blue Greenway. Many of these elements may be components that assist in Principles of Installation: View Focused, Sense of Place, Durable developing the continuity and identity to the Blue Greenway system. In The provision of furnishing in particular locations can reinforce a site’s addition, material selection will be based upon experiences gained from past unique attributes. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development experience and successes along San Francisco’s and other similar waterfront Commission recommends providing seating and other amenities in elevated places for viewing the bay 21 and focusing seating towards views. settings. In addition, by using materials that reflect the unique history of the site, the special qualities of the place are further developed and reinforced in the user’s experience. Finally, it is important to provide durable features that will withstand considerable usage and the climate in the given location. Many of these qualities are contained within the Port of San Francisco’s PortWalk Design Criteria. These four design principles summarized as: functionally appropriate, durability, character and maintainable. 22

Illustration depicting BCDC planting recommendation 20 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and 23 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood Gabriel Roche Inc, (DATE?), p. 4-22,23. Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche 21 Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Bay Con- Inc, (DATE?), p. 4-3. servation and Development Commission, April 2005, p. 20. 24 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood 22 The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design & Access: An Element of the Waterfront Land Use Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche Plan, The Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Planning Department, June 2004, p. 36. Inc, (DATE?), p. 4-10.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.7 Port of San Francisco

Connections Between Spaces

Connecting Multiple Open Space Elements along a Single Waterfront The defining feature in the best practice examples reviewed was the use of a continuous pedestrian connection along the waterfront to link the larger open Loops spaces and the creation of pedestrian “loops” as developed in Vancouver. The San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade Plan and the Oakland Water Front trail both provide a connecting pathway linking several open space amenities, including both passive and active elements. The various recreation features accessed from the pathway are varied and change depending on location. In this way a user can choose his/her preferred recreational activity via a continuous and clear access route. The loops in Vancouver provide a connection between neighborhoods and the waterfront and also provide an alternative to a linear system, that requires “back tracking” to return to the point of origin for recreational users.

Vancouver’s Park “Loops” – Vancouver, Canada

Vancouver’s “Blueways” plan focused on improving bus, streetcar, ferry and water taxi access between tourist nodes in the city and the waterfront.25 In addition to these transportation improvements, the waterfront parks were built to provide a system of connected waterfront open spaces which formed “loops” of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the city. The standard for a seawall path increased from 25 to 35 feet, allowing both bikes and pedestrians Vancouver’s waterfront improvements include trail loops to connect neighborhoods with the waterfront to share the space equally. The city saw a decrease in vehicular congestion and an increase in pedestrian activity. From 1994 to 1999, the pedestrian movements increased by over 55%.26

25 Blueways: An Initiative of the Vancouver Water Opportunities Advisory Group (Draft), Vancouver Water Opportunities Advisory Group, July 1997, p. 30. 26 Copy of PowerPoint presentation provided by Gordon Price to NPC 2005

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.8 Port of San Francisco

Cross section of San Pedro Promenade and adjacent neighborhood.

The Promenade - San Pedro Plan The San Pedro Waterfront plan unites a series of public parks including numerous facilities, active marinas, a future museum, and the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium with a continuous promenade. This Promenade is the plan’s organizing feature, connecting all of the waterfront’s open spaces. The promenade is divided into two levels, a thirty-foot wide lower level adjacent to the water with seating and more passive viewing and forty-foot wide upper level with more active users like joggers and bikers. The lower level is constructed with wood, while the upper uses paving and includes more landscape elements like trees.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.9 Port of San Francisco

Diagram of the route of Oakland’s Waterfront Trail.

The Continuous Trail - Oakland Waterfront Trail /Bay Trail Along the entire water’s edge, this trail ranges in minimum proposed width The Oakland Waterfront Trail is proposed to run along the entire water’s edge of twelve feet to twenty feet depending on the location. 28 connecting a variety of parks, existing streams and marshlands. 27

27 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Hood 28 Oakland Waterfront Trail: Bay Trail Feasibility & Design Guidelines, by EDAW, Murakami Nelson, Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Gabriel Roche Hood Design, Golden Associates, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Treadwell & Rollo, JWD Group, and Inc, (DATE?), Figure 3.1. Gabriel Roche Inc, (DATE?), p. Figure 3.2.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.10 Port of San Francisco

Diagram of the trolley and water taxi system for San Pedro’s Waterfront.

Red Car Line Trolley and Water Taxi System - San Pedro Plan the waterfront and allow visitors to travel by foot and explore the waterfront from the waterside. A water taxi system is also considered in the Hudson The Port of Los Angeles’s San Pedro Plan provides a new trolley line which River Park plan. will link all of the major amenities. This trolley line, called the “Red Car Line,” follows the promenade which will link the waterfront for pedestrians. In addition, a water taxi system is proposed which would make twelve stops along

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.11 Port of San Francisco

Visual Connections to the Waterfront Best Practices to be applied to Blue Greenway: An element of the Blue Greenway Concept includes improving connections Both the Hudson River Park Design and the San Pedro plan discusses the between the Blue Greenway and the adjacent communities. These connections importance of creating clear entrances and clear “view corridors” at major are identified as “Connector Streets” and in many cases are the location of entrances to the facility stating that “no structure or trees will be sited within existing and planned bicycle routes consistent with the City’s Bicycle Plan, 29 view corridors from building line to building line.” This provides a sense which are primary access routes within a neighborhood or provide direct of openness, visibility and urbanity. The Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront connections to public transit. Improvement and enhancement of these Design & Access Plan provides a view policy which focuses on providing three Connector Streets could provide a loop system such as that created in types of views: 1) view sites (specific “exceptional” locations for water viewing); Vancouver. 2) street views (views of the water or waterfront structures from streets connecting to the waterfront); and 3)view intervals (views provides at frequent intervals along the promenade).

Green Corridor Connections from the City to the Water

The Mission Bay Streetscape Master Plan proposes the use of systematic street tree plantings to develop clear corridors for connect to the waterfront from the surrounding streets.30 This unifies the character of the streets and provides a signal to visitors that they are in district which focuses on the water.

Parking Access - San Pedro Plan

Within the San Pedro Plan, parking is provided for visitors encouraging them to park and then explore the various waterfront parks by foot. These parking garages are high-density, multi-story buildings with ground floor retail. To encourage transit use and not detract from the setting, they are located close to transit, but away from the waterfront and the public views at the water’s edge. 31 This centralized parking is considered a “park once, then walk” approach. 32

29 Hudson River Park: Design Guidelines Master Plan, Hudson River Park Conservancy in cooperation with Empire State Development Corporation and the City of New York, 1998?, p. 18. 30 Bayfront Parks P23 & P 24 Mission Bay, Schematic Design Submittal, by Hargreaves Associates and BKF for Mission Bay Development Group, September 28, 2009, p 34. 31 San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade, from Bridge to Breakwater, Master Development Plan, Ehren- krantz Eckstut &Kuhn Architects/Gafcon, Inc. for The City of Los Angeles, September 2005, p.37. 32 San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade, from Bridge to Breakwater, Master Development Plan, Ehren- krantz Eckstut &Kuhn Architects/Gafcon, Inc. for The City of Los Angeles, September 2005, p.36.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Best Practices 4.12 Port of San Francisco

5. Next Steps This next phase will build upon the work completed for Phase 2, including input received through the community workshop and public comment. The next phase will include preliminary program use concepts for open spaces; alternative design concepts for site furnishings, signage, identity, way-finding and public art, preliminary cost estimates project prioritization and may suggest recommend projects for early implementation. This information will be presented and reviewed with the community and Port Commission in July and August.

Blue Greenway Design Standards Next Steps 5.1 Port of San Francisco