DOCSLIB.ORG

2008 NSTI SIR.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2008 NSTI SIR.Pdf Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final Supplemental Information Report July 2008 Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office West San Diego, California Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office West Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final Supplemental Information Report July 2008 Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office West San Diego, California TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 3 1.2 Purpose of the Supplemental Impact Report ............................................................... 1 4 2.0 CHANGES IN THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................... 2 5 2.1 Draft Reuse Plan ............................................................................................................... 2 6 2.2 New Development Plan .................................................................................................. 6 7 2.3 Comparison of Changes Between the Draft Reuse Plan and the 8 New Development Plan ................................................................................................ 10 9 3.0 RESOURCE AREA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 12 10 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12 11 3.2 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 12 12 3.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 17 13 3.4 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 26 14 3.5 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 31 15 3.6 Geology and soils ........................................................................................................... 41 16 3.7 Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 43 17 3.8 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 46 18 4.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 53 19 5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 54 20 6.0 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ 55 LIST OF FIGURES 21 2-1 Alternative 1 Land Uses (Draft Reuse Plan) ............................................................................. 3 22 2-2 Treasure Island General Zoning Map under the New Development Plan ........................... 7 23 3-1 Simulated View from the San Francisco Waterfront (Draft Reuse Plan) ............................ 27 24 3-2 Simulated View from the East Bay Waterfront (Draft Reuse Plan) ..................................... 28 25 3-3 Visual Concept for the New Development Plan .................................................................... 29 26 3-4 Visual Simulation from the San Francisco Waterfront – Pier 7 27 (New Development Plan) .......................................................................................................... 33 28 3-5 Visual Simulation from Pier 70 (New Development Plan) ................................................... 35 29 3-6 Visual Simulation from the East Bay Waterfront (New Development Plan) ..................... 37 LIST OF TABLES 30 2.1-1 NSTI Acreage on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island .................................................... 5 31 2.3-1 Summary Comparison of Land Development Characteristics of Reuse 32 Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 11 Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island SIR i Final – July 2008 1 3.2-1 Bay Bridge/Interstate-80 Operations Existing Conditions ................................................... 14 2 3.2-2 Bay Bridge/Interstate-80 Yerba Buena Island Ramp Demand Volumes 3 and Maximum Queue ................................................................................................................ 14 4 3.2-3 Net New Vehicle-Trip Generation ............................................................................................ 15 5 3.2-4 Bay Bridge/Interstate-80 Operations Existing and Year 2025 Weekday 6 and Weekend Peak Hour Conditions ...................................................................................... 16 7 3.2-5 Bay Bridge /Interstate-80 Yerba Buena Island Ramp Volumes and 8 Maximum Queue Existing and Year 2025 Weekday and Weekend Peak 9 Hour Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 18 10 3.3-1 Demolition Noise ........................................................................................................................ 22 11 3.3-2 Residential and Commercial Development Noise ................................................................. 22 12 3.3-3 High-Rise Development Noise ................................................................................................. 22 13 3.3-4 Marina Development Noise ...................................................................................................... 23 14 3.3-5 Treasure Island Road Noise Modeling .................................................................................... 24 15 3.3-6 Bay Bridge Treasure Island / San Francisco Noise Modeling .............................................. 24 16 3.3-7 Bay Bridge Treasure Island / Oakland (East Bay) Noise Modeling .................................... 25 17 3.3-8 Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Treasure Island (AM Peak Hour) 18 Noise Modeling ........................................................................................................................... 25 19 3.5-1 Summary of Transportation-Related Air Pollutant Emissions for the 20 Reuse Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 40 21 3.5-2 Estimated Peak Vehicle Trips for Treasure Island ................................................................. 40 22 3.7-1 Comparison of Proposed Utility System Upgrades for Previously 23 Analyzed Alternatives and the New Development Plan ...................................................... 44 24 3.7-2 Comparison of Utility Demand for Previously Analyzed Alternatives 25 and the New Plan ........................................................................................................................ 46 ii Disposal and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island SIR Final – July 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 2 In 1993, the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission, pursuant to the Defense Base 3 Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990 recommended the closure of Naval Station Treasure 4 Island (NSTI). The station was subsequently closed on 30 September 1997. An Environmental 5 Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 6 (NEPA), the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 7 Parts 1500 – 1508), and agency regulations and guidelines to evaluate the environmental 8 consequences of the proposed disposal of surplus Federal property at NSTI and the subsequent 9 reuse of those properties. The EIS evaluated three reuse alternatives: Alternative 1 (Draft Reuse 10 Plan Alternative1); Alternative 2; and Alternative 3. The EIS also evaluated the No Action 11 Alternative, in which the Navy would retain ownership of NSTI surplus federal property in a 12 caretaker status. The EIS analyzed potential environmental impacts relating to land use; visual 13 resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; transportation; air quality; noise; biological resources; 14 geology and soils; water resources; utilities; public services; and hazardous materials and waste. 15 The only potentially significant and not mitigable impact related to the demolition of historic 16 buildings that would occur under Alternative 2. The Final EIS (FEIS) was submitted in 2003 and the 17 Department of the Navy (DoN) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 2005 indicating that the 18 disposal of NSTI would be accomplished in a manner that would allow the Treasure Island 19 Development Authority (TIDA) to reuse the property as set out in Alternative 1 (DoN 2005). Limits 20 on levels of development and analysis thresholds were set forth in the ROD. 21 Subsequently, TIDA has undertaken an extensive public process to further refine the land use plan 22 for NSTI and has continued to update the master development plan since July 2002. The new 23 Development Plan was issued by TIDA and Treasure Island Community Development, LLC. 24 (TICD) on 11 October 2006.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension
    SCH No.95063004 City Project No. 2000.048E VOLUME I TRANSBAY TERMINAL / CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION / REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT in the City and County of San Francisco FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, §102 (42 U.S.C. §4332); Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. §5301(e), §5323(b) and §5324(b)); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. §303); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, §106 (16 U.S.C. §4700; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; 23 CFR Part 771; Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice); and California Environmental Quality Act, PRC 21000 etseq.; and the State of California CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, 15000 et seq. by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD, AND SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY March 2004 . ,- o c»uNrt I 1 *A#:II-04 rwr-7 ...41"EaLI.ii '». 1 =74=,./MB, Fl , r r-y=.rl .t*FIAA,fil, ,aae¥=<2* Beiwv Iald' 9"..1/5//2/ ea Acknowledgement This Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) was prepared in part from a grant of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds received from the California Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. SCH No.95063004 City Project No. 2000.048E TRANSBAY TERMINAL / CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION / REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT in the City and County o f San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa C]ara Counties FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    [Show full text]
  • Tunnel Road Safety: a Look at Older Drivers’ Performance
    TUNNEL ROAD SAFETY: A LOOK AT OLDER DRIVERS’ PERFORMANCE AND SIGHT IMPAIRMENT A Thesis presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees Master of City & Regional Planning Master of Science in Engineering (Transportation Planning Specialization) by Edith Lopez Victoria March 2014 © 2014 Edith Lopez Victoria ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Page ii COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP TITLE: Tunnel Road Safety: A Look at Older Drivers’ Performance and Sight Impairment AUTHOR: Edith Lopez Victoria DATE SUBMITTED: March 2014 COMMITTEE CHAIR: Dr. Cornelius Nuworsoo, Associate Professor City & Regional Planning Department COMMITTEE MEMBER: Dr. Anurag Pande Assistant Professor Civil Engineering Department COMMITTEE MEMBER: Chris Clark, JD, Lecturer City & Regional Planning Department Page iii ABSTRACT Tunnel Road Safety: A Look at Older Drivers’ Performance and Sight Impairment Edith Lopez Victoria In California, there is an observed trend in which collisions cluster in and around tunnels. The break in road continuity created by the tunnels disturbs traffic flow that can lead to collisions. One of the main contrasts between open roads and tunnel roads occurs in lighting. Drivers with sight deficiencies are unable to adapt their sight to the change in the lighting environment and may crash due to misperception of road alignment, vehicle’s speed and other physiological reactions, such as tension. The suspect population group of crashes occurring under the influence of tunnels conditions is older drivers. The literature suggests that sight and driving performance deteriorate with age. This research attempted to validate this claim by performing a study that looked at driver and crash characteristic of injury and fatal collisions that occurred in and around tunnels.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Named Freeway Publication
    Photograph taken by Caltrans Photography 2020 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California Prepared by The California Department of Transportation © 2021 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. [page left intentionally blank] 2020 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY David S. Kim, Secretary CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Toks Omishakin, Director CALTRANS DIVISION OF RESEARCH, INNOVATION and SYSTEM INFORMATION Office of Highway System Information and Performance January 2021 [page left intentionally blank] PREFACE 2020 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California is produced by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a reference on the many named facilities that are a part of the California State Highway System. This publication provides information on officially named freeways; highways; structures such as bridges, tunnels, and interchanges; Blue Star Memorial Highways; Safety Roadside Rest Areas; and memorial plaques. A section concerning historical names is also included in this publication. The final section of this publication includes background information on each naming. HOW FREEWAYS, HIGHWAYS AND STRUCTURES ARE NAMED Each route in the State Highway System is given a unique number for identification and signed with distinctive numbered Interstate, United States, or California State route shields to guide public travel. The State Legislature designates all State highway routes and assigns route numbers, while the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has authority over the numbering of Interstate and United States routes. In addition to having a route number, a route may also have a name and, in some cases, multiple names.
    [Show full text]
  • Main Subject Headings
    MAIN SUBJECT HEADINGS ACCIDENTS ARCHAEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY AWARDS BEAUTIFICATION--See LANDSCAPE & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BRIDGES BUILDINGS BYPASSES--See ROADSIDE BUSINESSES & BYPASSES CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION CONVENTIONS--See EVENTS CONVICT LABOR CULVERTS--See also EROSION CONTROL CURBS--See SAFETY DAMS & CANALS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS--See also PERSONNEL/EMPLOYMENT RELATED DOCUMENTS & RECORDS DRAINAGE--See EROSION CONTROL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES--See also LANDSCAPE & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT EROSION CONTROL--See also FLOODING EVENTS EXHIBITS--See INFORMATIONAL SERVICES FERRIES FLOODING FOREST HIGHWAYS--See ROAD CONSTRUCTION FREEWAYS GRADE CROSSINGS, SEPARATIONS & INTERCHANGES GUARD RAILS--See SAFETY HIGHWAYS--See ROUTES HIGHWAY PLANNING & DESIGN HISTORIC LANDMARKS & MONUMENTS HISTORY: PEOPLE, PLACES & HISTORIC EVENTS--See also EVENTS INFORMATIONAL SERVICES INTERCHANGES--See GRADE CROSSINGS, SEPARATIONS & INTERCHANGES LANDSCAPE & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LEGISLATION LIGHTING--See SAFETY LITIGATION / LEGAL LITTER REMOVAL--See LANDSCAPE & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE--See also SNOW; LANDSCAPE & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE; EQUIPMENT MEDIANS--See SAFETY MOTOR VEHICLES--See also TRAFFIC NATIVE AMERICANS NATURAL DISASTERS--See also FLOODING ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENTS--See DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PALEONTOLOGY--See ARCHAEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY PAVEMENT MARKINGS--See SAFETY MAIN SUBJECT HEADINGS PAVEMENT & PAVING--See also EQUIPMENT, Paving Related PEOPLE--See PEOPLE INDEX PERSONNEL/EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PUBLIC RELATIONS--See
    [Show full text]
  • MTC Bay Bridge Rail Feasibility Study
    r. ,·3'' rb'bt#*-4 ,"11 4 ':...A· :, 1·Li'.1 ...... 62774/<192 4.2 . :.11.1 t=.Tr-'.- 1 47 '1' ·'. ' Metropolitan Transportation • Commission 0 BAY BRIDGE RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY 31.- 0 July 2000 I Submitted by: · n-nels°n\nygaardUll 1 consulring ass:,ciates Ove Arup & Partners LTK Engineering Services Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein Moris - r. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BRIDGE RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONTENTS TABLE Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 .................. ES-2 RailImpacts Options of Rail Service on the Bay Bridge . ES-3 ID Costs................. ... ES-5 Next Steps ..................... , , , , , . , . ES-6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . Bay Bridge History . 1-1 0 Study Parameters................................................1-1 RAIL SERVICE OPTIONS ....................................2-1 CHAPTER 2. Alternative A -Bay Bridge Light Rail ................................. 2-1 Alternative B -BART Relief Line....................................2-6 Alternative C- Basic Bridge Railroad Passenger Service . 2-10 Alternative D- Aggressive Bridge Railroad Passenger . .2-1 9 CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS . 3-1 West Span Structural Component Dead and Live Load . 3-2 Location of Rail Service on the West Spans . 3-3 Non-Structural Considerations................. 3-9 West Span Structural Component Dead and Live Load .................. 3-10 The Impact of Rail Operations on the Proposed East Spans . 3-18 Yerba Buena Tunnel ............................................ 3-22 4. STRUCTURAL COSTS ...................................... 4-1 CHAPTER CHAPTER 5. RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ROLLING STOCK COSTS . 5-1 Transbay Light Rail Capital Costs. 5-2 BART Service . 5-13 Transbay Bridge Basic Bridge Railroad Passenger Service . 5-14 Aggressive Bridge Railroad Passenger Service . 5-16 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS . 6-1 APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS AND NAMING CONVENTIONS APPENDIX B.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Tunnels — Past, Present and Future 14 Take a Tour of the Busy Underground of NAT 2008’S Host City
    Reader Service Number 1 CONTENTS June CONTENTS2008 Cover Story San Francisco Tunnels — Past, Present and Future 14 Take a tour of the busy underground of NAT 2008’s host city... By Victor S. Romero Napa Valley Wine Caves 18 ...and cap off your stay with a visit to the wine country with a look at wine cave construction. By Jan Van Greunen Features On the Waterfront 20 Beach sewer tunnel emergency repair and rehabilitation project 20 requires boat access to the work site. By Albert Ruiz, David Jurich and Joseph McDivitt 3-D Scanning in Tunneling 25 Fast, accurate measurement is a difficult aspect in tunnel construc- tion, maintenance and redevelopment. By John Stenmark Contractor Claims Against the Owner’s Designer 30 Can a contractor sue an engineer or other design professional directly for misrepresentations in the plans and specifications? By Peter Kutil and Karl Silverberg North American Tunnel Project Update 34 By Jack Burke 25 Columns Editor’s Message . 4 Departments Business Briefs . 6 Global . 12 TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine (ISSN 1553-2917) is published six times per year. Copyright 2008, Benjamin Media Inc., P.O. Box 190, Peninsula, OH 44264. USA All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans- Calendar. 40 mitted by any means without written permission from the publisher. One year subscription rates: complimentary in the United States and Canada, and $69 in Products . 41 other foreign countries. Single copy rate: $10. Subscriptions and classified adver- tising should be addressed to the Peninsula office. Postmaster return form 1579 to TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
    I I I NEW EASTERN SPAN OF THE BAY BRIDGE • SELF ANCHORED SUSPENSION BRIDGE • WORKSHOP SUBMITTAL· MAY 1997 I I I I I I I I I I I I METROPOLITAN I 601 Montgomery Street TRANSPORTATION San Francisco, CA 94111 I Phone~15)398-8972 COMMISSION AJointVentureCompany Fax (415) 433-8189 I ,, __COWI&OOSSNG+WBTl.NG http://baybridge.gerwick.com I I I .. ... - - - ---- .~-----.~~+#f ~....-r-~,".'------'.----.. --.---- ._--.- -... -- .. - . I I I I I I .. , •...... ....: .. .~. " • '. ~'" ,Y. "... ¥ • _. > • A ~ ..... -... _. ~ ...• ~ .... -....... ~ .. , .... ,. ....• . ... 1 .. -... :... - ,. ' .... ; .. --.,,"'.;; ..... -.. "-~,:.:.,..; .. --... ":....... I INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The present report is in response to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Bay ARCHITECTURAL I Bridge Design Task Force request to receive presentations from interested parties on pro­ posed designs for the new eastern span. It is understood that an Engineering and Design The 8ayscape Advisory Panel (EDAP) has been convened to assist the Task Force in recommending a pre­ I ferred design. The unique setting of the new Bay Bridge has been a major factor throughout the design process. Our design echoes the elegance and the sweeping lines of This report is submitted as a proposed design at the EDAP Workshop, May 12-14, 1997. the Western Span as well as the Golden Gate Bridge. With their instantly rec­ I The current proposal has been developed by the Gerwick/Sverdrup/DMJM Joint Venture, cur­ ognizable profiles these bridges have become known around the world as the . rently working for Caltrans on the seismic upgrading design for the Richmond-Ran Rafael signature landmarks of the Bay Area. The new bridge complements the I Bridge. Assistance has been provided by COWl, Ben C.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge SF & Alameda Counties, California Section Number 7 Page J
    NFS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) .United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property historic name San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge other names/site number Bay Bridge 2. Location street & number 1-80__________ not for publication___ city or town San Francisco and Oakland______________________________ vicinity X_____ state California______ code CA county See Continuation Sheet zip code __ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of!986, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant __ nationally __ statewide __ locally. ( __ See continuation sheet.) Signature of certifying official Date California Office of Historic Preservation ____________________________________ State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property \/ meets ___ does not meet the National Register criteria. ( See continuation sheet for additional comments.) _____; _______ Signature of commenting or other official • Dat/e ' State or Federal agency and bureau MO-00 FR! 02:32 PH MLC CIVIL ENGINEERING DI FAX NO, 2 P, 02 NFS FOJ:IV; 10-900 ^Kjm (Rev. 10-90} OMB No> 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1.
    [Show full text]
  • TREASURE ISLAND TRANSPORTATION PLAN Exhibit J: Transportation Plan September 2006
    TREASURE ISLAND TRANSPORTATION PLAN Exhibit J: Transportation Plan September 2006 Treasure Island Community Development, LLC September 2006 TREASURE ISLAND TRANSPORTATION PLAN - FINAL SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................1 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................6 Master Plan Process ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Integration of Transportation and Land Use ................................................................................................... 10 Integration with Sustainability Goals.............................................................................................................. 11 2 Proposed Transportation Measures..........................................................................12 Goal 1: Prioritize Walking ............................................................................................................................... 12 Goal 2: Maximize the Usefulness of Bicycling.................................................................................................. 12 Goal 3: Maximize Effectiveness and Convenience of Transit & Ridesharing
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGY of SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA United States of America
    San Francisco Pacific Ocean San Francisco Bay GEOLOGY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA United States of America Geology of the Cities of the World Series Association Engineering Geologists Geology of Cities of the World Series Geology of San Francisco, California, United States of America Issued to registrants at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and 13th International Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists Congress in San Francisco, CA – September 16 through 22, 2018. Editors: Kenneth A. Johnson, PhD, CEG, PE WSP USA, San Francisco, CA Greg W. Bartow, CHg, CEG California State Parks, Sacramento, CA Contributing Authors: John Baldwin, Greg W. Bartow, Peter Dartnell, George Ford, Jeffrey A. Gilman, Robert Givler, Sally Goodin, Russell W. Graymer, H. Gary Greene, Kenneth A. Johnson, Samuel Y. Johnson, Darrell Klingman, Keith L. Knudsen, William Lettis, William E. Motzer, Dorinda Shipman, Lori A. Simpson, Philip J. Stuecheli, and Raymond Sullivan. It is hard to be unaware of the earth in San Francisco (Wahrhaftig, 1984). A generous grant from the AEG Foundation, Robert F. Legget Fund, helped make this publication possible. Founded in 1993, the Robert F. Legget Fund of the AEG foundation supports publications and public outreach in engineering geology and environmental geology that serve as information resources for the professional practitioner, students, faculty, and the public. The fund also supports education about the interactions between the works of mankind and the geologic environment. Cover Plate: European Space Agency i Table of Contents PREFACE v ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Geographic Setting . 1 Climate . 6 History and Founding . 6 Native Americans . 6 European Founding of San Francisco .
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging San Francisco Bay 513~533 12 Bridge Opening 1 2 534~550 13 a Work in Progress
    www.PDHcenter.com PDHonline Course C577 www.PDHonline.org Table of Contents Slide/s Part Title/Description 1N/ATitle 2 N/A Table of Contents 3~36 1 Inland Sea 37~75 2 The Hoover-Young Commission 76~102 3 Design By Committee 103~118 4 West Bay Crossing 119~162 5 East Bay Crossing 163~231 6 Sub-Aqueous Piers 232~355 7 West Bay Construction 356~413 8 East Bay Construction 414~445 9 Contract No. 3 (SF) 446~492 10 Yerba Buena 493~512 11 Minor Contracts Bridging San Francisco Bay 513~533 12 Bridge Opening 1 2 534~550 13 A Work in Progress Satellite view of “The Inland Sea.” The entry to Suisun Bay the bay is through the San Pablo Bay Golden Gate Strait which separates the San Francisco peninsula from Marin Part 1 County (roughly three miles long by one mile Marin County wide). Collectively known Oakland as San Francisco Bay, it consists of three bays; San Inland Sea Golden Gate Strait Francisco Bay (south), San San Francisco Pablo Bay (north) and Suisun Bay (northeast). San Francisco Bay Northern California rivers Pacific Ocean deposit their fresh water into the bay creating 3 turbulent conditions. 4 Known as “Yerba Buena” (before the Gold Rush of 1849), San PROCLAMATION Francisco was a sleepy village of four hundred souls. The discovery of gold changed all that and San Francisco with its “Inland Sea” We, Norton I, Pei Gratia, Emperor of the United States and became the focus of the rush and by 1850, the population had Protector of Mexico, do order and direct that a suspension bridge be exploded to 30K.
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland Bay Bridge (Sfobb) East Span
    THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW SAN FRANCISCO- OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE (SFOBB) EAST SPAN Tom Ho, Ph.D., P.E.1 Abstract The new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span consists of four major components; the signature 385 m single-tower, self-anchored suspension span, the 1.6 mile dual box girder skyway, the 467 m Yerba Buena Island transition structures, and the 406 m Oakland touchdown approach. Complex and varied geological conditions at the bridge site, hazardous seismic conditions, and state-mandated design criteria contributed to the challenges of designing and constructing this landmark lifeline structure. Bridge History On October 17, 1989, at 5:05 p.m., a Richter scale 7.1 earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area. The epicenter was located in a remote hilly area of the Santa Cruz Mountains called Loma Prieta, which is about 97 km from San Francisco. The earthquake lasted approximately 15 seconds, killed 62 people, injured thousands and brought widespread damage to buildings, utilities, communications and transportation systems. One of the most significant transportation structures damaged during this earthquake was the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The East Span of the Bay Bridge, designed in 1933 and completed in 1936, consists of four shallow simple span trusses on Yerba Buena Island (YBI), a long cantilever truss structure, five deep simple-span trusses, fourteen shallow simple-span trusses, and a number of simple-span deck systems that use steel and concrete stringers supported on transverse concrete bents. The total length of the East Span is 3.4 km.
    [Show full text]